History Repeating itself. Iraq Invasion VS Iran Invasion.

Run_to_da_hills

An interesting analysis between the build up to the Iraq invasion and the coming Iran invasion.

Familiar faces, same excuses, same MSM propaganda, same quotations, same everything.

3,5 minutes into the video.

I don't believe the invasion on Iran will be such a walk over compared to that of Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JuY20PkI6s

Jonny7

You mean the Iran invasion that has been just.. juust.. about to happen for the last 7 years?

Do you mind if I ask, why are you so obsessed with war and bombs and terror .. isn't this just a modern internet version of "the rapture is coming"?

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Do you mind if I ask, why are you so obsessed with war and bombs and terror ..

Because "they' are so obsessed with war and bombs and terror ...


Israel’s War Plans to Attack Iran “Before the US Elections”

Obama threatens to attack Syria

shedweller

So, johnny, should we turn our backs on all the military goings on in the world and don't ask critical questions? Is it bad to ask critical questions regarding all the wars and military spending, motives, backhanders, countries involved and why etc.?

(awaits standard quip)

Run_to_da_hills

shedweller wrote: »

So, johnny, should we turn our backs on all the military goings on in the world and don't ask critical questions? Is it bad to ask critical questions regarding all the wars and military spending, motives, backhanders, countries involved and why etc.?

(awaits standard quip)

Yeah, there is also the immanent danger of being arrested and carted off if speak your mind about it.

http://wtvr.com/2012/08/20/hearing-begins-for-marine-veteran-detained-over-facebook-posts/

Torakx

No government in the world seems concerned..somebodies got to be, just happens a good many frequent these types of forums.

If you support your government most likely you support war and death.
Thats how i feel about it at this stage.Ireland might try to play the neutral card but since we joined the EU that is slowly becoming redundant.
We are as a nation as guilty of war crimes because our gov has joined us to a superstate associating with murderers and thieves.
Whch is perectly normal, because thats who run our country too.

I do think if there is a move made on Iran it could have the potential to escalate alot more than the Iraq farce.

Run_to_da_hills

Torakx wrote: »

I do think if there is a move made on Iran it could have the potential to escalate alot more than the Iraq farce.

Iran is a far more advanced country than Iraq was prior to 9/11, it has notable strong allies who are well armed and prepared to jump in and assist them in any event.

Owryan

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Obama threatens to attack Syria

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans."

---

> This is directly from the above link you provided.

President Obama is speaking in relation to the use by Syrian government forces of chemical/biological weapons. He is not saying anything about going to war for the sake of it . I dont think too many countries would happily sit by and let the use of such weapons go unchecked.

As for Iran/Israel plenty of sabre rattling by both sides, worrying for the rest of us .

Torakx

Owryan wrote: »

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans."

---

> This is directly from the above link you provided.

President Obama is speaking in relation to the use by Syrian government forces of chemical/biological weapons. He is not saying anything about going to war for the sake of it . I dont think too many countries would happily sit by and let the use of such weapons go unchecked.

As for Iran/Israel plenty of sabre rattling by both sides, worrying for the rest of us .

You mean the same situation as Iraq?
That war was started to prevent that very thing(officially), which turned out was a non issue afterall.
Im forgetting the reason to invade Afghanistan..i think that was over 9/11(officially)... another joke of a reason to take over a whole country.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Owryan

Torakx wrote: »

You mean the same situation as Iraq?
That war was started to prevent that very thing(officially), which turned out was a non issue afterall.

Different situation but i see your point, there is currently a civil war going on in Syria, one much more in the public eye than the Iraq/Kurdish situation .

The invasion of Iraq in'03 was a massive pr operation based on little more than a desire to get rid of saddam (oh and make some money)

After Libya Pres. Obama is afraid of directly intervening to force a regime change , hence the sabre rattling over a threat that only the US has brought up.

Run_to_da_hills

Owryan wrote: »

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans."

---

> This is directly from the above link you provided.

President Obama is speaking in relation to the use by Syrian government forces of chemical/biological weapons. He is not saying anything about going to war for the sake of it . I dont think too many countries would happily sit by and let the use of such weapons go unchecked.

As for Iran/Israel plenty of sabre rattling by both sides, worrying for the rest of us .

the same was said about WMD's prior to Iraq evasion that was alao a figment of their imagination.

The rogue source, that was a pillar for the invasion of Iraq, admits lying about the portable biological weapon factories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n1Ej2g-m4w

Jonny7

shedweller wrote: »

So, johnny, should we turn our backs on all the military goings on in the world and don't ask critical questions? Is it bad to ask critical questions regarding all the wars and military spending, motives, backhanders, countries involved and why etc.?

(awaits standard quip)

No Shedweller, we should be focusing entirely on complete and utter gossip and speculation regarding the next apocalyptic event that may or may not take place, we should pay particular attention to only certain countries and ignore others while at the same time critically plastering rumour, gossip, random doom-mongering, baseless claims and assorted bible predictions all over the web - because, you know, that's the proper way to analyse situations

that a good enough quip for ya

Torakx

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

There Will not be an Iran invasion. FACT.

I know somone in Sudan who is quite interested in his local politics and he is adamant Iran and the US are friends and this whole thing is a staged show for the world.
He seemed very sure about this, despite how it looks.
So im open to all possibilities.
The way i see it , he is much closer to the truth location wise than me.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Gee Bag

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iran is a far more advanced country than Iraq was prior to 9/11, it has notable strong allies who are well armed and prepared to jump in and assist them in any event.

Wouldn't disagree with you that Iran is more militarily advanced than Iraq was in 2003. However, their airforce is made up primarily of 30-40 year old planes. Their anti-aircraft defences are made up of ageing Russian equipment which has proven itself to be pretty much useless against modern US equipment. In addition they have no missile defences worth speaking of. However, I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to try or is even seriously suggesting a ground invasion.

What major allies does Iran have that will become in the event of bombing by the US or Israel? The Syrians are a bit tied up at the moment, and there is no way that either the Russians or Chinese will become involved militarily. Even Hamas have said they won't get involved in a war between Israel and Iran. That leaves just Hezbollah.

Torakx

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Im sure you wont mind me disregarding that comment, after all look at the Forum were in :P

Of course! it was speculation on my part.
I do like to discuss, but doesnt mean everything i say i consider fact
Although many times people have thought this to be the case!

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yeah, there is also the immanent danger of being arrested and carted off if speak your mind about it.

http://wtvr.com/2012/08/20/hearing-begins-for-marine-veteran-detained-over-facebook-posts/

Without knowing exactly what this guy posted and what else he did, it's a bit premature to complain about him being carted off for psychiatric evaluation.

If they didn't do so, and he then went on a shooting rampage, you'd be the first to blame them and say that it was an attack staged by the government, right?

Run_to_da_hills

Gee Bag wrote: »

Wouldn't disagree with you that Iran is more militarily advanced than Iraq was in 2003. However, their airforce is made up primarily of 30-40 year old planes. Their anti-aircraft defences are made up of ageing Russian equipment which has proven itself to be pretty much useless against modern US equipment. In addition they have no missile defences worth speaking of. However, I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to try or is even seriously suggesting a ground invasion.

What major allies does Iran have that will become in the event of bombing by the US or Israel? The Syrians are a bit tied up at the moment, and there is no way that either the Russians or Chinese will become involved militarily. Even Hamas have said they won't get involved in a war between Israel and Iran. That leaves just Hezbollah.

Pakistan has nukes and has pledged to support Iran in an event of an attack. .

Iran and Syria have also signed a mutual defence treaty in 2005 in response to the growing possibility of conflict with the West. Both countries are highly inclined to fulfill this treaty, Russia has interests in Syria including its major naval sea port at Tartus. I would doubt very much that Russia sit back and let an attack on either of those countries go by without a struggle.

As for ground warfare, (Of which I doubt there would be too much of) I would guess Iran would have an unlimited number of volunteers from its allies.

Iran's Allies:

Lebenon
Syria
China
Russia
India
Pakistan
Iraq
Afghanistan
Venezuela
North Korea

Gee Bag

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Pakistan has nukes and has pledged to support Iran in an event of an attack. .

You appear to have read the headline only. The Pakistanis have said they won't allow Pakistan be used as a base to attack Iran. Not exactly the same as deploying nukes to fight the US. In addition, Pakistan needs US money and military aid to fight off the Pakisatni branch of the Talliban who were strong enough to take control of the Swat Valley 70 miles from Islamabad two years ago

Iran and Syria have also signed a mutual defence treaty in 2005 in response to the growing possibility of conflict with the West. Both countries are highly inclined to fulfill this treaty, Russia has interests in Syria including its major naval sea port at Tartus. I would doubt very much that Russia sit back and let an attack on either of those countries go by without a struggle.

We have yet to see unifromed Iranian or Russian troops intevene in Syria.
The Russians recently chickened out of sending refurbished attack helicopters to Syria. Same goes for Russian sales of S300 missiles to Iran. The Syrian state is too weak to crush the rebellion and they have been clobbered evey time they have gone up against Israel. How you think they will be able to give meaningful support to Iran is beyond me.

As for ground warfare, (Of which I doubt there would be too much of) I would guess Iran would have an unlimited number of volunteers from its allies.

I haven't heard any serious suggestions of a ground invasion. Where would such invasion be launched from? The idea of 'unlimited volunteers' is pure fantasy.

As for the allies..............

Lebanon
Hezbollah are supported by Iran, the state of Lebanon is not allied to Iran. The most likely outcome of Hezbullah supporting Iran is another civil war in Lebanon or a serious kicking from Israel. Israel got a fright from Hezbollah in the 2006 war, but in a protracted conflict there would only be one outcome.

Syria
As stated above the Syrian government are in no position to give support

China
Russia
Will in no way become involved. Russian halted the sale of S300 missiles to Iran. China's largest trading partner is the US.

India
Iran and India have clsoe relation re trade and education. India still imports Iranian oil depite sanctions. This is not a military alliance, not even close. India voted against Iran at IAEA in 2005.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Neither of these countries are allied with Iran and are ethnically different, both states are financially dependant on the US for their survival

Pakistan
Have said the US can not launch attacks on Iran from their territory. This is not a military alliance.

Venezuela
Has close relations, but is not allied and is located on the far side of the world.

North Korea
Ha ha ha Cuc-koo, Cuc-koo. No one is allied with North Korea, even the Chinese find them an embarassment.

I am in no way advocating an attack on Iran. Of all the countries in that region Iran is the one state that has consistently stood up for itself and faced down the US and UK. Air/missile strikes would knock out the Iranian air force and nuclear capacity in no time at all, but the blowback through asymmetric warfare by Iran would be ferocious.

Yet another post full of complete and utter fantasy by you.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Pakistan has nukes and has pledged to support Iran in an event of an attack. .

I think you are misinterpreting what is being said here - the quoted part basically says that Pakistan will not allow the US to use it as a launching pad for such an attack. It doesn't suggest at all that Pakistan will declare war on the US.

Pakistan has pledged to support Iran if the US launches a military attack against the Islamic Republic. The Pakistani president assured the Iranian leader that his country’s territory will not be used as a launch pad for such an assault.
Should the United Stated decide to attack Iran, Pakistan will not support the move and will not allow the US to use its local airbases for military operations, the Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zardari said on Friday.

Run_to_da_hills

Gee Bag wrote: »

Will in no way become involved. Russian halted the sale of S300 missiles to Iran. China's largest trading partner is the US.

Yet another post full of complete and utter fantasy by you.

Russia is not going to sit back.

Russia May Sell S-300s to Iran If Syrian Government Falls.

Syria crisis: Russia warns Obama against 'violation' of international law

Russia warns West over Syria after Obama threats

Gee Bag

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Russia is not going to sit back.

Russia May Sell S-300s to Iran If Syrian Government Falls.

Syria crisis: Russia warns Obama against 'violation' of international law

Russia warns West over Syria after Obama threats

OK, so now we are down to one ally from your original long list.

The Russians will do nothing. Same as before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, same as they are doing now in Syria. They will make a song and dance about facing up to the yanks but they'll do nothing when the time comes. The Russians are hard as nails when they're kicking lumps out of small countries in the Caucases with tiny armies and sh1te ex-soviet equipment, but they wouldn't dare face down a NATO country, much less the US.

S-300 missiles aren't the sort of thing you can take out of the box and fire straight away. Crews need extensive training before hand. Even if they were sold now they are too late to be of use. Announcing a sale of S300's would pretty much guarantee that the Israeli's would launch air strikes before the missiles arrived

This entire thread was started by you on the basis that history is repeating (Iraq 2003; Iran 2012). In reality, the potential war in Iran is an entirley different prospect. The causes are different and there won't be a ground war. In addition, there will be little initial Arab support for Iran due to ethnic and religous differences. However, I do believe that in the long run the Iranins would hit back very hard against Israel and the west (lots of false flags for you!).

To be honest I don't even know why you raised this issue in the CT forum, all of this information is out in the open. At this stage unless there is a major volte face the only real questions are whether it will be the US or Israel and when will it start.

Torakx

I would be very suprised if Israel moved first.
They seem to get the americans to do all their dirty work.And if the americans do, it will have to look like a defensive move i suppose.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

I would be very suprised if Israel moved first.
They seem to get the americans to do all their dirty work.And if the americans do, it will have to look like a defensive move i suppose.

I don't know - Israel have made the first move before. I can see them attacking Iraq and the USA being frog-marched into supporting them (after they have acted alone) by the Israeli lobby and the Christian right wing in the US.

Gee Bag

Torakx wrote: »

I would be very suprised if Israel moved first.
They seem to get the americans to do all their dirty work.And if the americans do, it will have to look like a defensive move i suppose.

Same as that,

The Israelis are throwing lots of shapes at the minute, they even leaked a copy of their alleged attack plan to a blogger and are not denyiny that its real.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19271083

In reality it would be dumb move on their part as it would unite the Arab countries behind Iran, similar to what Saddam was trying to do by firing Scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War.

My money is on the yanks.

Run_to_da_hills

Gee Bag wrote: »

This entire thread was started by you on the basis that history is repeating (Iraq 2003; Iran 2012). In reality, the potential war in Iran is an entirley different prospect. The causes are different and there won't be a ground war. In addition, there will be little initial Arab support for Iran due to ethnic and religous differences. However, I do believe that in the long run the Iranins would hit back very hard against Israel and the west (lots of false flags for you!).

To be honest I don't even know why you raised this issue in the CT forum, all of this information is out in the open. At this stage unless there is a major volte face the only real questions are whether it will be the US or Israel and when will it start.

If you watched the video, the entire thread is based on the exact same hot air being raised by the allied forces against Iraq and that of Iran on the prospect of WMD's (Of which they never found in Iraq and more than likely will not be found again in Iran.).

I do hold my point that this war will not be a "walk over" like it was with Iraq There are different circumstances and and different political climates.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I do hold my point that this war will not be a "walk over" like it was with Iraq There are different circumstances and and different political climates.

Wow, we agree on something. Of course there would only be one winner, but I think the first part of the war would be more difficult than it was in Iraq, and the second part (after George Bush declares 'mission accomplished) would be no easier.

Gee Bag

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If you watched the video, the entire thread is based on the exact same hot air being raised by the allied forces against Iraq and that of Iran on the prospect of WMD's (Of which they never found in Iraq and more than likely will not be found again in Iran.).

I do hold my point that this war will not be a "walk over" like it was with Iraq There are different circumstances and and different political climates.

The video you posted is a series of random comments taken out of contexts. Its utter guff.

I never suggested that the war in Iraq was not predicated on complete and utter lies. The big differnce is that Iran is openly refining high grade uranium in defiance of the IAEA, they being the same body who said that the WMD story in Iraq was bullsh!t.

Your thread title mentions history repeating and invasion. Its my contention that the circumstances are very different and there isn't going to be an invasion, meaning a ground assault.

Your statement that if/when this war does happen it won't be a walk over kind of indicates to me that you are aware that its not a case of history repeating.

Your subsequent posts employed the irrational technique of trying to bend everything to fit the usual apocalyptic scenario.

Run_to_da_hills

Gee Bag wrote: »

Your subsequent posts employed the irrational technique of trying to bend everything to fit the usual apocalyptic scenario.

There is no bending of anything because an apocalyptic scenario is inevitable if this war go ahead. I certainly would not want to be in the middle east and particularly Damascus or Iran. As I said before Israel has a reputation of cracking eggs with sledge hammers, they have nukes and would have no hesitation of using them if they felt their country was under treat.They may even falseflag America into the equation which is quite possible as we have seen from our history books..

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They may even falseflag America into the equation which is quite possible as we have seen from our history books..

Funny you should mention that because I'm still waiting for you to give examples of terrorism from 'the beginning of time' on the other thread...

Gee Bag

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is no bending of anything because an apocalyptic scenario is inevitable if this war go ahead.

Its always the apocalypse with you, no matter how often you get it wrong you keep on coming. People have been wittering on with millenial nonsense since time immemorial, but it still hasn't happened.

If there is a war involving Iran it will be very bloody but it won't be the apocalypse.

I certainly would not want to be in the middle east and particularly Damascus or Iran.

Very few people would choose to be in Damascus at the moment or in Iran if an air war starts.

As I said before Israel has a reputation of cracking eggs with sledge hammers, they have nukes and would have no hesitation of using them if they felt their country was under treat.They may even falseflag America into the equation which is quite possible as we have seen from our history books..

Yes indeed I agree, the Israeli's are assholes. That said so are most of their neighbours. Despite its appalling human rights record Iran is the country I have the most respect for in the middle east.

No state would opt to start a war with an enemy armed with nukes. Thats the reason Iran want them. I can't say I blame them. I'll say one thing for the Isrealis though, they don't really do subtle. Other than attacking the USS Liberty and various assassinations can you name a generally accepted major Israeli false flag operation?

shedweller

Gee Bag wrote: »

The big differnce is that Iran is openly refining high grade uranium in defiance of the IAEA.

But sure that stuff is safe, if fukushima is anything to go by.
Iran are only using that stuff for power generation. They said. It must be true!

Just the same way that usrael spout ****e and people think its true. Works both ways.......or does it?

Torakx

Well as soon as america disarm all their nukes il expect Iran to stop production of nukes.
Same goes for nuclear power plants and plutonium.
Until then i would expect any country capable of making them to do so, to defend against that out of control superstate.

Gee Bag

shedweller wrote: »

But sure that stuff is safe, if fukushima is anything to go by.
Iran are only using that stuff for power generation. They said. It must be true!

Just the same way that usrael spout ****e and people think its true. Works both ways.......or does it?

I thought the japanese building a nuclear reactor on a coastline liable to tsunamis was crazy.

I don't believe the Iranian's are enriching uranium solely for civilian nuclear power. If they were then they wouldn't have rejected the offer made in 2006. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/iran/nuclear_en.htm

That said, I think bombing Iran would be an absolute disaster. But I don't think it will lead to the apocalypse like the OP contends, nor so I think the circumstances are the same as the buid up to the invasion of Iraq.

If the Iranians tried to nuke Israel they would end up wiping out the Paleastinians, the very people they are trying to help. In addition, Israel's submarine fleet would probably launch an immediate counter-strike.

Torakx

This is why i think it more likely America would be the ones to start throwing digs..after a false flag of some kind or any usefull excuse..IF thats the plan.

They are across the water alot more out of reach than Israel for a start.
And with America comes Britain and Europe.
Israel have too bad a reputation i think also to be starting those kind of fights.
It would be much easier for America to do what it was created to do.

Run_to_da_hills

Gee Bag wrote: »

North Korea
No one is allied with North Korea.

Kim Jong Un plans first international visit since taking power in North Korea… and he’s flying to IRAN