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

News Romney's threat to Iran with war

  1. Jul 29, 2012 #1

    It is said that Romney will give war threats if Iran does not give up its nuclear program. What do you guys think? I think he is a buffoon, and we definitely should not participate in a war with Iran. Iran is a lot different than Iraq, what makes you think that they won't be able to hurt civilians here in the US as a retaliation. Fighting Afghanistan or Iraq is much different than going into war with Iran.

    I'm not sure if Romney is a buffoon or he is trying to get more votes -- either way this is ludicrous. The scary part is that Obama also recognizes that a war is eminent. Neither parties have stood against the possibility of war.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2012 #2
    I felt his threat did not have any weight.

    And, Obama also said once "military action has not been ruled out".
  4. Jul 29, 2012 #3
    "One of his top foreign policy advisers who declared that Romney "would respect" an Israeli decision to launch a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities....

    Israel fears that Iran soon will have moved its enrichment facilities into impregnable underground locations, meaning time is running out to destroy them with aerial bombing."

    I sense a lot of tension building up -- I wouldn't be too surprised if a war culminated over the years.

    "Obama has sought to dissuade Israel from a unilateral attack on Iran to allow time for tough sanctions to take a toll on the Islamic Republic's economy and further isolate the country. Obama has said the United States holds open the option of military operations against Iran but has insisted now is not the time for an attack, either by the U.S. or Israel."

    Sounds like a cold war to me, waiting to build up. This is a very dangerous situation.

  5. Jul 30, 2012 #4
    IMO, he said the same thing every President has said since the issue with Iran and nukes started i.e. "All options on the table" = "Stop or else" = "military action" This is nothing new. Different words; same meaning.

  6. Jul 30, 2012 #5
    That is true. Still, the tension is building up. America dragged us to war with Iraq under the false statement of George Bush, "weapons of mass destruction." None were found! I think America has a good chance of dragging us into another stupid war, hey more oil right?

    Romney is doing the same thing that George Bush has done; skewing the truth to control the public. He has stated that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. No they are not! They are working on nuclear energy. I wouldn't be too surprised if another war culminates from all the tension in the middle east. There has been murders of some of the Iranian scientists working on nuclear energy -- it is only a matter of time until things get more serious. Israel does not want Iran to build a nuclear weapon, neither does the United States. It is all about trust, and guess how much trust they have in Iran -- nil.

    Because in this case you will be in war with ALL of Iran, not a couple of groups in Iran.
  7. Jul 30, 2012 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    What doess ALL of Iran mean? How is that different than the war in Iraq?
  8. Jul 30, 2012 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Those are not mutually exclusive options.

    Anyway, he's moved on to insulting Palestinians now. But I guess he wasn't going to get either money or votes form the US Palestinian community anyway.
    (also reported on BBC news)

    After his UK trip the Sun newspaper ran the headline "Mitt the Twit". Just as well his name wan't "Matt"...
  9. Jul 30, 2012 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who is "He"?

    Such as the Libyan civil war?
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  10. Jul 30, 2012 #9
    The difference is that you can look up American militants dancing with Iraqian police. I don't think you will see that happen in Iran. And according to wikipedia, there were Iraqi forces that were on side with American forces.

    It falls under the category of MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War).

    If you get into war with Iran, Russia or China might be inclined to join in. China takes a large portion of its oil from Iran if I remember correctly. I don't think they would be too happy if America wanted to go in and bully China's oil supply.
  11. Jul 30, 2012 #10

    I don't get it. Did Iran every admit of developing nuclear weapons? I don't think the department of defense or other organizations have stated this either.

    The thing that I fear is another country intervening such as China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China–Iran_relations I think other countries are probably growing weary of the US's foreign policy and its bully-like attitude of foreign resources such as oil.

  12. Jul 30, 2012 #11
    Mitt has said and not said many things. He changes colors every day. That's why I said his threat did not have any weight.
    Do you think anyone (non-Pales) in US would buy this argument?:
    I wonder if Mitt would lose even the intelligent class because of a small anti-Palestinian statement.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  13. Jul 30, 2012 #12
    Regardless, the growing tension in the middle east is troublesome. At one point, the tension in the string might snap. I'm sure the US and especially Israel is growing more and more uncomfortable of the thought that Iran might produce a nuclear weapon from its growing knowledge of nuclear energy.
  14. Jul 31, 2012 #13
    I don't think you statement is entirely accurate. http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-8.htm
    I was pretty well known during the Clinton administration that there was a significant amount of anthrax unaccounted for. While the nuclear program in Iraq had been on hold, it hadn't been given up. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html While it is true the "smoking gun" wasn't found, the evidence is, IMO, pretty clear where Iraq wanted to go in weapons development.

    FWIW, based on my Iranian friends, I wouldn't be so quick to state emphatically they aren't developing nuclear weapons. Also, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-14/world/iran.nuclear_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-program-weapons-program?_s=PM:WORLD [Broken]

    That’s pretty much a generic statement that is almost always true, IMO. The Shea Muslims in Iraq were dominated by the minority Sunni Muslims, as were the Kurds, so I doubt they were too upset with Saddam being removed. Even in our own revolutionary war, not everyone wanted to go to war with England.

    Personally, I think the Iraq war was a mistake because Iraq kept Iran in check, and IMO, Iraq would not have allowed Iran's nuclear program to progress to where it is today. Nor do I think Iran would have let Iraq progress very far in it's weapons development.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  15. Jul 31, 2012 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That realpolitik logic could have been used similarly to leave 1939 Germany alone , so that it could keep the Soviet Union in check. No so much fun for those slaughtered by either government.
  16. Jul 31, 2012 #15
    I absolutely agree. We (the US) probably did what will best serve the Iraq people in the long run. The previous Iraq government was about as hostile toward it's own population as it can get. Since it was "Bush's war", I'm not sure people will ever come to realize that we did the best thing for Iraq at great cost to the U.S., it's allies, etc. IMO, right thing for maybe the wrong reason (WMD).
  17. Aug 1, 2012 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    This makes no sense. I quess you are trying to say that the Iraqi police have a working relationship with the American military? Why wouldn't they?

    So you say. Others say differently. To quote a story by Afshin Molavi in Smithsonian Magazine,

    My guess is that we wouldn't be at war with All of anything! Just like in Iraq.

    So now ALL of Russia and China too? C'mon! I see that recently Russia's largest oil company has won exploration rights in the south of Iraq. And China is reported to be reaping the benefits of the Iraq war. By your logic, the US should go to war with Russia and China?
  18. Aug 1, 2012 #17
    Difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Iraqi people were happy we overthrew Saddam Hussein and destroyed there military. The military of Iraq didn't like Saddam either. That is why despite having a 350000 man army we only lost under a 100 troops and there were no real battles. The army gave up and told Saddam to pretty much F!@# himself. The Iranian people are a proud people and don't want to see there country be overthrown. They rather live in tyranny then have there country be like Iraq. If we attack Iran there military will respond in full force and the casualties will be large for a modern war.
  19. Aug 1, 2012 #18
    Great link, I didn't have the slightest of idea. I learned a lot reading it.

    "Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/A_New_Day_in_Iran.html#ixzz22LzV1mh7 "

    Can you clear things up for me here, I thought the US took all of the oil reserves by force. It seems that they were up for bidding?

    Yeah so I thought as well. I'm not sure about the legitimacy of this source and how accurate it is in capturing the public opinion but take a look at it.

  20. Aug 1, 2012 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    It's worse than that. The Iraqis are calling the shots! Both Exxon and Chevron have been locked out of bidding for exploration on occasion for pursuing deals with the Kurds rather than the Iraqi government. Click on the link I provided regarding China reaping the benefit of the war.

    Remember the 2009-2010 elections in Iran? Remember the election fraud perpetrated by the government? Iranians want to vote the tyrants out of office. I don't think most would rise up against an invasion as you suggest. But I don't believe an invasion is imminent yet either.
  21. Aug 1, 2012 #20
    Yes Iranians want to take back there country. They don't want foreign power turning them into a weak war torn nation. They rather have have the Tyranny if it means Iran can still be it's own nation.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook