Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iran declares victory over the USA

  1. Mar 2, 2008 #1
    The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy!! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there! What could be more humiliating than this?! :rofl:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL02355657
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2008 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Having the guy who got us into this as President?

    We will be paying the price for Bush's follies for the rest of my life, however Halliburton and its investors are doing extremely well. The people who started this war didn't lose, but America did.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2008
  4. Mar 2, 2008 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Neither of those is true.
    We're handing Iraq over to Iranian control? Huh?

    Do you have a point to discuss here, or is this just a random America-bash?
     
  5. Mar 2, 2008 #4
    Explain.
     
  6. Mar 2, 2008 #5
    Well to be honest, the US economy is far from bankrupt and Iraq is far from lost. Although a win is a little but of a stretch; they certainly achieved what they set out to do, where they messed up was in the engame, ie it seems that there wasn't a plan after the war.

    To be honest, I actually look at this as quite positive, Iran establishing relations with Iraq, putting aside former differences. But maybe I'm seeing the event through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.
     
  7. Mar 2, 2008 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Explain what?

    Btw, I missed one: the title is also not true.
     
  8. Mar 2, 2008 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is an interesting possibility there, of Iran becoming friends with a pro-US government. And there is as much danger for Iran as for us. This visit was a shot in the proxy-war Iran is waging against the US in Iraq. Having a pro-US country on their border would be double-bad for Iran. Besides the physical security risk, the political risk of a functional and prosperous democracy right next door for their people to be jealous of would be very bad for Iran.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2008 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Firstly, as Russ indicated, I have not heard any claims of victory on the part of Iran.

    Secondly, the US is not going bankrupt, but the $200 billion/yr for the war is a serious drain in the US treasury.

    Thirdly, the US government is not handing Iraq to Iran, rather it appears that the US government is not interfering in Iraqi foreign affairs, as is appropriate. It is up to the Iraqi government to conduct its affairs, and that means establish trade and stable relationships with all its neighbors. I suspect that Iraqis will want to be Iraqis first, rather than be controlled by US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or whomever.
     
  10. Mar 2, 2008 #9
    What about having a pro-Iran government in Iraq that the US can't do anything about?
     
  11. Mar 2, 2008 #10
    Never mind. If you can't figure that out, I think it's safe to ignore what you have to say on the issue. Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
     
  12. Mar 2, 2008 #11

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Iran and the US aren't "longtime enemies," as the article states. In fact, the youth in Iran have favorable views of the US. I'm very optimistic aobut our future relations with Iran. My views come mostly from the many, many Iranians I have met, who tend to be over-represented in the sciences (and damn good scientists, as well).

    I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking. Iraq has a large ****e population; of course they can be expected to have close ties to Iran.
     
  13. Mar 2, 2008 #12
    Everything I've read/heard about Iran tells me the populace is fairly liberal. It's almost like a case of the US in the 50's, where the "adults" projected one image, but in reality most people were somewhere else.

    Just another case of people in power having more say than the people who actually elected them.
     
  14. Mar 2, 2008 #13

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl::rofl:

    I didn't know there was a profanity filter here at PF!!! I didn't mean "****e," I meant Shi'ite!!!
     
  15. Mar 2, 2008 #14
    from the Australian:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html
     
  16. Mar 2, 2008 #15
    So, who doesn't know the difference between a slowdown and going bankrupt, Stiglitz, Wilson, fourier jr, or me?
     
  17. Mar 2, 2008 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The sub-prime mortgage crisis had to do with sloppy and possibly illegal lending practices, and is complete independent from the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

    The report in the Australian seems to be a case of sloppy journalism.

    The US envolvement in Iraq is entering its 5th year and the cost is less the $1 trillion at the moment, but it certainly will increase the longer the US maintains 150,000 troops and 10's of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.


    For the record, I vehemently disagree with Bush and Cheney's policies. Both have shown a callous disregard for human life.
     
  18. Mar 2, 2008 #17

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One should not forget that the name of the country; Iran, is derived from the term Aryan.

    And that the Arabs and Persians have not been good friends for about 1500 years.

    and that it's only now that it is convenient that they are both Muslim countries, and the great country to the west is apparently weakened, that they should become friends.

    Now that it is known(not that it wasn't 30 years ago), that Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, one would think that there has been some poker playing going on for a while.

    Unfortunately, the US populous is still intellectually ahead of the game.
     
  19. Mar 2, 2008 #18
    Actually, it's over a trillion dollars if you count all the "hidden" costs.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
     
  20. Mar 3, 2008 #19
    I'll say: US & UK teamed up to depose the democratic government of Iran (prime minister) Because of his refusal to supply oil concessions favourable to the UK, and installed the Shah (puppet monarchic dictator/despot) Iran has been rather screwed by our political machinations. And then we have the nerve to turn around and complain about Iran not being a democracy, that's rich. Seems to me we've done everything in our power to create a pro US/UK/West Iran and we couldn't even do that, see operation ajax. Since Iran isn't exactly poverty stricken despite our best attempts, I don't think it'll be that bothered by a prosperous democracy on its doorstep. After all at least it's government was chosen by popular consent, even if it isn't exactly a democracy.

    Still the hypocrisy of the ME never ceases to amaze me. Seems to be: create the problem then go in and clean it up every time, unbefrickinglievable. Give Iran nuclear power stations (US) and enrichment technology (Europe) And then moan at it when it enriches Uranium, which it is entitled to do under the NPT, then claim its working towards/has nukes (a lie more or less as they had no idea, and CIA believes it cancelled its weapons program in 2003) So now it has sanctions only for not being open about its enrichment, not for a breach of NPT. To be frank if Iran is working against the US it only has itself to blame. I give up trying to predict what rich statement is going to come from the US government next, when we getting a new president again? I wonder if Gordon Brown is going to be the same sort of toady as TB?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2008
  21. Mar 3, 2008 #20

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One of the figures in that article shows projected costs to 2017, so it's hard to discern what has been the cost with what will be the cost. I was reflecting on direct costs, so it's true that indirect costs push the overall cost above $1 trillion - most of which has yet to be paid by US taxpayers. Ostensibly, it's difficult to say what the projected costs will be because the US will presumably be an ongoing target of those who will want to retaliate for the war in Iraq.

    The price of all has had an upward pressure anyway from the growth of Chinese and Indian economies (not to mention the rampant and irresponsible speculation on the oil trading markets), but the threat to Iraqi oil supply has probably put a greater pressure on the price of oil. As for lost investment, continued sanctions would have held down investment in Iraq.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Iran declares victory over the USA
  1. Declaring Victory (Replies: 18)

  2. The Price of Victory (Replies: 37)

  3. Occupation of Iran (Replies: 193)

  4. Russia and Iran (Replies: 52)

  5. Iran and Nationalism (Replies: 0)

Loading...