Welcome to Discuss Everything Forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


 

Poll: Who will America go to war with in 2012?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Tags for this Thread

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    admin's Avatar
    Administrator

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Age
    54
    Posts
    13,768
    Blog Entries
    3844
    Images
    1215
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    5176

    Pie Chart Who will America start War with in 2012?

    Judging by the way all republican candidates itching to pull that trigger, as well as how Obama's popularity plummeted recently, there is a good chance America will indeed start a war this year, but with who?

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    I think it will be Yemen, they have been in the news a lot lately.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    America might go to war with Russia. Putin really knows how to push US buttons.

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    Iran it will be, I just hope US will do a better job there than in Iraq.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    As sparks fly dangerously close to the powder keg of US-Iranian relations, speculations are rife and rumors spread like wildfire. Will there be a war? Who wants it? And what will happen to this very lucrative region?Google the words “Iran”, “USA” and “war” and you get over 140 million hits. Many believe the possibility of a military conflict between the two is not even a question of “if”but a question of “when”. And there is definitely enough evidence around to lend support to these beliefs.Let’s break it down. Will there be a war? According to Israeli military analysts quoted by Global Research, an independent research and media organization, that possibility is “dangerously close”. But let’s say analysts, especially military ones, are of the boy-scout-always-be-prepared disposition by nature. What other evidence is there?Occam’s razor states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible. Logic tells us to follow the money – and in this case, the cases of weapons shipped out by the US. So where are they headed to?In October 2010, the US negotiated a $67 billion deal with Saudi Arabia to supply the latter with bunker-buster bombs, F-15 fighter jets, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, Patriot-2 missiles and warships. It is, in simple terms, the LARGEST bilateral weapons deal in US history.One month later, in November, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the United States will proved the United Arab Emirates with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up US effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.”Washington also plans to supply Stinger and other missiles to Oman. Kuwait is in for $900 million worth of Patriot missiles. And a $53 billion arms deal with Bahrain is still on the agenda – delayed only because of pressure from international lawmakers and human rights groups.So the United States is increasing military ties with its allies, one might claim. And it is true, but all those allies are conveniently located in the Persian Gulf…right next to Iran. It’s not just weapons, either. Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman all have US military bases on their territory. And with the US most likely asking NATO in for a piece of the action, alliance members like Turkey are perfectly positioned to lend a helping hand. Besides being conveniently close geographically, Ankara has also been holding on to a lot of US nuclear weapons, including a large number of B61 bombs. But all this does, effectively, is highlight the military capabilities of the US in the region. Categorically stating all this is being done by the Department of Defense as part of a preparation for war with Iran would be irresponsible – until the Pentagon men say so themselves.Oh wait…they have been. For years.In late 2005, then CIA director Porter Goss, who was visiting Ankara, requested that the Turkish prime minister “provide political and logistical support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."In 2006, the Israeli prime minister green lights a military strike against Iran. Various staged war games always focused on the possibility of military conflict with Iran. And all these years later, Secretary of State Clinton’s former advisor on Iran still says Obama is more than willing to launch a pre-emptive strike.Michel Chossudovsky, economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, says there have been specific, detailed military plans for war with Iran since 2003."These war plans go back to the 1990s or even before that. If you look at active war plans, you can say May 2003, when the Department of Defense came up with the strategic concept plan CON8022, dubbed “Global Strike”. The framework of attacking Iran and the scenarios and the war plans have been going on for the last 8 years. We have so much evidence of covert operations, of scenarios, of drone attacks, of regime change scenarios. And its not only the United States that are preparing. The Iranians have been preparing for this war for years. They have the S-300 missile defense system, very extensive ground forces – enough to overrun the remaining US forces in Iraq. Our estimates are that Iran can mobilize two million troops overnight." Preparations, strong allies in the region, huge defense budget for 2012 – all the signs point to the Americans getting ready for a potential war. But when – and how – does it start?According to the editor-in-chief of Russia’s ‘National Defense’ magazine Igor Korotchenko, anything can trigger the triggers. “If the US pushes through more sanctions and Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz in return, that could easily be enough. Basically, Washington will use any convenient reason that appears legitimate cause for the international community to attack.”And with the upcoming US-Israeli war games in the Strait of Hormuz, analysts like Chossudovsky say a convenient reason will be very easy to come by. “The Strait is very narrow. There’s not a lot of space before Iran’s territorial waters begin. And they would have to respond to a violation of its territorial waters.” He goes on to speculate that faced with such a violation, Iran would have no choice but to send an ultimatum the 5th Fleet commanders there, which will be ignored for some reason. Then, according to international law, a second ultimatum. If that’s ignored, Iran has no choice but to act – leaving America in its preferred position of reacting.”History does support this notion of provocation being a favored US military tactic. Richard Sanders of the Coalition Against the Arms Trade looked at US war history in detail and came out with a rather disturbing conclusion: starting from the Mexican-American war in 1846, pretext incidents have been used every time; incidents that were later disproved, or re-interpreted by historians, journalists and political committees; incidents that have become a military trademark for one of the world’s youngest, but most war-hungry nations.Sanders’ statement is echoed by many – including Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! associate editor Patrick Henningsen. Examples he highlights are historical facts that show just how manipulative the US Department of Defense can be. “This is how the US was able to fake their way into the Vietnam War, via the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Likewise, Israel's slaughter of the USS Liberty naval crew in 1967 was designed as a false flag event, but luckily Russia intervened at the last minute before Israel could sink the American ship.”It wouldn’t be the first time the US has tried to push Iran’s buttons. As revealed by a senior British officer a few years ago, there were times in Iraq when the US military commanders ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory. “If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," the unnamed officer said.Unfortunately, “all hell breaking loose” is a scenario that is still not off the table. Iran, while not having many allies willing to go to bat for it in the region, can still put up a fight.Iran plays a critical role in the Persian Gulf and with its strategic geography not only dominates the Northern Gulf but the shipping lines both inside and outside the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s leadership adheres to a "no first strike doctrine” and thus Iran has launched no wars of choice in modern history. The Iranian constitution bans the establishment of any foreign military bases in the country, even for peaceful purposes.Following the Islamic revolution in 1979 Iran also divided its armed forces into regular and revolutionary components. The Iran’s Revolutionary Guards is separated from the regular army and has its own Navy, Aerospace and Ground Forces, as well as Special Forces.And past experiences have also shown that for the American Armed Forces, a war with Iran, a country that in population is larger than the four countries recently invaded by the US put together, will not be a walk in the park. The Pentagon’s own war games in 2002 showed that in the event of an armed conflict, the United States would be overwhelmed by Iran in the Persian Gulf.As speculated by researcher and sociologist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against US naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the US are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of US naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where US vessels are constricted.”Allies-wise, Iran is more or less on its own. Syria, its closest ally, is too caught up in the almost year-long violence that has been shaking the country, Armenia is a possible and Lebanon’s Hezbollah could shift their allegiance either way. The Shanghai Cooperation Council is a regional organization that has a few powerful friends, namely China and Russia, but whether they will want to get involved in an all-out military conflict is doubtful.A statement made by Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, said that “a military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.”As for China, it is showing Tehran some support by refusing to fold under US pressure and halt oil imports from Iran. But it has never been one to show its hand before it had to, so the extent of China’s potential involvement in the conflict is also open to debate.Some analysts, like Patrick Henningsen, believe that should other countries get drawn into the conflict, it could signify the beginning of a new, economical Cold War-era. Henningsen says that “we have the ideal set of conditions for a New Cold War to emerge in the early 21st Century – one where the Western Axis powers of the US, Europe, Israel and GCC countries sit on one side, and with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, China, and perhaps Russia sitting on the opposite side. This New Cold War will be more about sub-regional dominance in terms of economics – natural gas, mineral and trade relationships, as well as petroleum – than it will about the political ideologies that seemed to dominate the previous 20th Century Cold War.”As sparks fly and tensions reach critical points, experts and analysts argue over who will start the war, why they will start the war, how the war will develop, whether it will spill out into World War III and what will happen in the end. Opinions are varied, detailed and range from the simplistic and obvious to the complex and conspiratorial.And the only one thing they all agree on? That it isn’t a matter of IF the war between the United States and Iran will happen. It’s a matter of WHEN.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    IN THE U.S., in Europe, even in Israel, military and intelligence officials agree: The Iranian government doesn't have a nuclear weapon. It doesn't have a program to make nuclear weapons. It hasn't even made a decision to pursue such a program sometime in the future.But leaders of the U.S. and Israeli governments are pressing for drastic sanctions and threatening war against Iran because of...its nuclear weapons program.The surreal fabrications and rank hypocrisy on display would be good for a laugh if the risk of a new round of war and devastation in Middle East wasn't deadly serious.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    With the Iraq war officially ‘over’ and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent announcement that the U.S. will end combat missions in Afghanistan in 2013, the question some are already asking is: Where will the U.S. go to war next?The desirable answer would be ‘nowhere,’ but with tension mounting in Syria and Iran, the real answer may be less hopeful.As I argued in my last PolicyMic article, going to war doesn’t mean what it used to. If war means full-scale invasion a la Iraq or Afghanistan with boots on the ground, then short of a major international crisis, it is unlikely America will be going to war anytime soon. A military response to the government violence in Syria would likely mirror the one seen in Libya, characterized primarily by the use of air power, possibly with small contingents of Special Forces or intelligence assets used on the ground to help organize and support anti-government forces. So far, no one is talking about a full-bore invasion of Syria, much less a serious military strike against the Bashar al-Assad regime. If the regime begins to fracture the way the Gaddafi regime did, with a large number of defections, then it is possible we could see another Libyan-style NATO intervention.The same can be said for a military response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Talk of attacking Iran consists mostly of using air strikes to cripple the nation’s nuclear facilities and naval assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, though there is some discussion about the need for regime change, which would require more than just air power. Even if the U.S. were to pursue regime change in Iran, it is not likely to be achieved through invasion.Less likely scenarios warranting wide-scale American military commitment are the always tense Korean Peninsula, Chinese military aggression against Taiwan (or another regional ally), or a war between India and Pakistan. Again, all of these are possible, though unlikely, circumstances that would warrant a considerable response from the U.S. military.If, however, ‘going to war’ means the use of military assets for a protracted period of time, then the possibilities grow exponentially. The use of drones are changing the face of traditional deployments, allowing the U.S. government to strike at targets in Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen without (officially) putting any boots on the ground or committing a large number of assets. They are, essentially, game changers. Granted, they are often used in these countries with tacit support from the governments rather than against the governments themselves. Where they, or the rest of the U.S. military, will strike next is anyone’s guess.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    If there is political will, yes. The main factor to be considered is if Iran starts to trade in a different currency and also how threatening their presence becomes to Israel. If war does break out, it will be more Guerilla warfare.America cannot even defeat a 3rd world country such as Iraqi or Afghanistan. The war with Iraqi and Afghanistan had been devastating to the USA economy. Americas goal was always just to threaten Iran into military action so they would stop developing nuclear weapons but war with Iran is highly unlikely as Iran is a moderate country with a good economy. War with Iran would destroy Americas economy and might even start World War 3.

    Think about it this way. Iraqi - 3rd world country (poor country) Afghanistan - 3rd world country (poor country) Iran - Good stable economy If USA is losing a war against Iraqi and Afghanistan then how will they do against Iran? The only way for USA to win the war would be to bombard the country to death and killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to win the war but every country would repell against America which even Americas allies would turn sides and fight against America.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Unregistered's Avatar
    Guest
    Vladimir Putin is trying to distance himself from the United States and is readying for a possible battle with the West. That said, here are the some of the possible deeper reasons behind his actions.

    Reason number 1: He's in cahoots with Iran, China, and possibly other countries in a plot to preemptively attack the United States. Listen, all you have to do is look at the evidence to know that this is feasible. After all, Putin's been dishing out fighting words for some time now.That said, a direct attack is the least likely scenario right now. But that doesn't mean that war is.

    Reason number 2: Putin is looking to protect Iran and his energy interests. Said another way, is he anticipating our strike against Iran and readying to fight for them? Unfortunately, with the presence in the Mediterranean and recent findings suggesting that they're beefing up their nuclear presence, this reason seems very possible. Heck, Israel higher ups recently even went as far as to suggest that a large scale conflict was looking unavoidable for them. Remember: We're one of their greatest allies.

    Reason number 3: Putin is simply looking to further the international view of Russia's military might. This one is simple, probably too simple. Still, it is feasible that he may just be trying to remind people of what they can do as a precautionary measure.

    Reason number 4: Putin is simply trying to gain public approval for elections. Recently, there was a sweeping parliamentary victory for his party in Russia (an election that many believe was manipulated). If a successor from his party is elected-since by law Putin is unable to be-many in the west believe that the new president will simply be a figurehead doing Putin's bidding. Further, there are some that believe Putin will be put back in office soon after the new president steps down, according to some grand scheme.This scenario is also very reasonable. Here's the issue, though. Why would talking tough against the West, particularly the United States, help someone become popular in Russia? The answer?We are hated there. And that can't be good.So no matter what the reasoning is for Russia's and Vladimir Putin's recent actions and verbalizations, one thing is for certain. None of it can be good news for the United States, and that means we should all be on alert.

  10. #10
    vicecaptain's Avatar
    Senior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,120
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I think the surprise package is SriLanka LOL.........

 

 

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Click here to log in


In what corner do we have Search box?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •