Dangerous Game: 'US almost daring Tehran to Strike First'

LMAO!!! Mark Twain isnt here and neither is the war everyone on here is hoping for. Is this what we do in the meantime? Quote past authors and writers about war since unfortunately we arent having one? Geez this site.

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
A couple more gems from Mark Twain:

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

And this beauty:

My invariable practice in war has been to bring out of every fight two-thirds more men than when I went in. This seems to me Napoleonic in its grandeur.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
LMAO!!! Mark Twain isnt here and neither is the war everyone on here is hoping for. Is this what we do in the meantime? Quote past authors and writers about war since unfortunately we arent having one? Geez this site.

Everyone but me. Your remark is typical of the hubris of the modern generation, the idea that no one who lived before your time might have had anything relevant to say. Tell me, o wise one, what exactly are you doing in the meantime besides drinking beer, masturbating, and ridiculing others? Channel-surfing hoping to catch tens or hundreds of thousands of people butchered in HD, maybe?

I agree. Geez this site.

Originally posted by Ben81
This is one true article !!
RT really have incredible and reliable reporters

Iran could have rushed to a direct confrontation or made terrorist attacks in the US
or launched missile on Israel and US iraq bases a long time ago

after the Stuxnet attacks on their vital computer
after many terrorist attack on the revolutionary guards
after many scientist killed in the street in bomb attack straped to their car
after heavy sanctions to cripple the Iran economy
after so many false accusation like having WMD and the assasination plots
after ruining their reputation making old ally doubts their relation

Iran didnt attack anyone in 200 yrs
30 000 jews are living happy without any discrimination in Iran
CNN should speak about those things

This article cannot be denied by anyone

With sanctions against Iran gradually showing their ineffectiveness, Washington is escalating the situation in the Persian Gulf, as if encouraging Tehran to attack first, a US politics professor told RT.
­Amid pressure mounting on Tehran, a major Indian company, United India Insurance Co., has agreed to provide insurance for tankers carrying oil from Iran. Insurances are vital for sea transportation. Without insurance, tankers are unable to deliver oil from one destination to another.
The decision of an Indian company means a serious blow to the effectiveness of the US sanctions against Iran in a bid to crank up the pressure over the country's nuclear activities. The sanctions target companies accused of breaching a European ban on buying oil from Tehran.
Simultaneously, to give their sanctions policies some military support, the US is sending fourth air carrier to the Persian Gulf region. It has also been announced that America deploys underwater drones to deal with sea mines Iran might plant in the Strait of Hormuz to block the vital route.
“The more warships the US moves [to the region], the more threatened Iran is going to feel and there is more chance of triggering some kind of mistake,”/ explains Patricia DeGennaro, professor of politics at New York University.
She says the act of sending more warships to the region is a dangerous game of “dare”.
“I don’t know what they are going to achieve by putting more warships in the region. This is a very bad move. Maybe they are trying to make Israel feel safer, but in fact again that is a very dangerous game that is almost daring somebody to strike first,” the professor believes.

RT Link


Iran hasnt strike first because China and Russia told them not to
because they will not help Iran if they strike first .. Syria included
Putin probably told them both to be patient and dont enter Nato emperial bully game
meaning they have a plan to fight Nato if they strike first

edit on 7/14/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

The carrier battlegroups are there to ensure the straight stays open. They are also there to say if you strike our folks in Iraq you are commiting suicide.

P.S. There are no undersea drones. We have however brought in mine sweeping ships. Also, if Iran doubts our resolve, I understand there are 3 nuclear submarines in the vacinity.

reply to post by jude11
just glad to have a American basher among us.... maybe since you voted your a hypocrite... eh... I'm wasting my time on this any way... I should do something constructive and order more ammo.... god speed dude...

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The amount of idiocy on here about Iran's inflated military capabilities is amazing. If this werent ATS i would be apalled. IRAN DOESNT STAND A CHANCE AGAINST THE US IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM-SORRY!!!

I know most folks on this site are Anti-US but they obviously arent Anti-stupid. Sad, so sad.

edit on 15-7-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)

9 out of 10 block buster movies shows the underdog beating the bully, of course the bully ultimately gets undone by their own hubris and of course everyone cheers.
As powerful as the US military is, they will always have an achilies heel and is only a matter of time before it is found, cant be involved in conflict after conflict and not show any weakness.

It is not something I am looking forward to as we always side with the US.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Everyone is dancing around and shadow boxing. No one wants the books to record for a thousand years that THEY, personally, started World War III. Even the Iceman himself in Moscow won't go first for the opener. It's just not the historical spot to want to hold.. lol... So of course Obama is pushing for all he's worth.

why would anyone let alone a warmonger care about what is written in a history book of the future......assuming there is anyone left to write the damn things? I mean reality check : scared of words in a book but have no issue with nuking millions. Sorry illogical but I can see it's a necessary standpoint to support the conspiracy.

Let's look at the middle east situation logically.

We know that Iran and Israel have been doing alot of sabre rattling in the past few months.
We know that Russia (God) and China (MaGog) have signed support agreements with Iran,
should the US or Israel attack Iran, Russia and China would swoop in and defend them.
We know that All three have been moving assets into the Straits of Hormuz.
We know that the Straits of Hormuz are the Oil Supply line to the world from the Middle East.
If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East, Russia, China, US, and Israel have Nukes available.
It is an assumption on my part, but looking at events and scripture, Iran may not be developing
nuclear weapons, but rather NEUTRON BOMBS because they are allied with the Palestinians
who want the land the Israeli's occupy. NEUTRON BOMBS will kill anything living, but leave the
buildings and other assets intact.

If this whole thing blows up and we goto war in that area, it will be enough to cancel the elections so
Obama could stay in the oval office.

reply to post by Jakes51
that was hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh I'm so used to the rhetorics for the past few years that frankly I'm getting bored

Originally posted by mattdel

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by jude11
There is no doubt that the US wants yet another War. This is the one they want and they will keep poking the bear until they get their War. Simple.

edit on 14-7-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

You speak with such certainty. But, it is just rhetoric. Can you support your "There is no doubt that the US wants yet another war"? Some links etc?

Right. As if anyone in any seat of power would come out and say it. Please, all of you, stop asking for links on subject matter that clearly won't have one. Use your brain. It's obvious that the US Gov is pushing buttons all around the world in an agenda driven manner. Just because they don't say it doesn't make it not true.

You are assuming that there is consensus within the US on the matter, and I would disagree. If the US wanted a war with Iran why would they develop the Flame computer virus.

The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage aimed at slowing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort.

www.washingtonpost.com... 6xBPoV_story.html

Did you notice the comment about "slowing down Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon"? This suggests alternative actions to war.

Yes, there are factions calling for war, but to assume there is consensus it wrong.

reply to post by deessell


As you say, I believe there are divisions within the American government about what should be the next move in relation to Iran.

From an overall strategic perspective, I think everybody within the Gov agrees on the objective of regime change in Iran. Disagreement mainly arises on what is the best way and timing to do that, since there are many other factors and contingencies to take into account (the economy, the price of oil, strategic readiness of US forces worldwide, diplomatic relations with Russia and China, etc...).

As far as I can tell from looking at the various pronouncements from various parts of the Government, there are mainly two factions.

The pro-war faction is spearheaded by the State Department and Hillary Clinton in particular. That one has been the most agressive, touring the world to find supporters and thwarting negotiations.

The more "prudent" faction is headed by Panetta at the Pentagon and probably also includes the Whitehouse. Panetta, and many generals, have been resisting the adoption of a more agressive stance, as evidenced by the military diplomacy played by Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to ensure Israel wouldn't strike on its own and derail all their careful planning.

As for now, it seems the military and the whitehouse have the upperhand and have delayed any direct conflict. But watch out for Clinton and her cabbal and how they might use a serious Syria incident to force the whole administration into war.