War with Iran

[Antifa94]

ERUSALEM, ISRAEL (Worthy News (http://www.worthynews.com/))-- Iran has warned of a military confrontation with Israel and the United States after at least eleven American warships, including an aircraft carrier, and an Israeli vessel passed through the Suez Canal, the largest fleet of ships to cross the volatile, strategic waterway, in recent years.

"We warn the U.S. and certain adventurist countries that if they are tempted to inspect Iranian air and ship cargoes, we will take tough action against their ships in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman", said Ali Larijani, the Iranian parliamentary speaker in comments obtained by Worthy News Sunday, June 20.

Egypt allowed the ships, led by the USS Truman with 5,000 sailors and marines on board, to pass through the Suez Canal on their way to the Red Sea at a time when an Iranian flotilla approached Gaza, according to the London based, Al Quds al-Arabi, an influential Arabic-language weekly news magazine.

It said thousands of Egyptian soldiers were deployed along the Suez Canal to guard the ships passage. Egypt's opposition reportedly criticized the government for cooperating with American and Israeli forces, but officials said Egypt is required to keep the Suez Canal open, even for warships, under international agreements.

The American-Israeli fleet was seen by analysts as a warning to Iran that it may face military action if its Iranian Red Crescent ship continues its course to Gaza, which has been surrounded by Israeli forces. Israel has made clear it wants to inspect the Iranian aid flotilla for illegal transport of weapons.

Separately, three German built Israeli submarines named Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan, equipped with nuclear cruise missiles were to be deployed in the gulf near the Iranian coastline, according to the Britain-based Sunday Times newspaper.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.








I smell a gulf of tonkin incident coming.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The fucked up part about ths is that, when put into a state of war, the way to protect themselves from such large & powerful enemies is through the direct threat of nuclear weapons. I don't believe Iran has nuclear weapons & are mere developing nuclear energy, but if war is waged then Iran will have to arm themselves, which will only bring about a justification for the US & Israel.

[Raurast]

This seems fishy to me. I have not seen it from any major news source. Also, Israel does not admit to having nuclear weapons. Since when do they openly carry nukes on submarines?

[GreenCommunism]

i have a nice video about it but it is only in french, i wish i could find the translation or a way to do subtitles. but basicly if israel attacks iran's nuclear reactor the radiation could go a long fucking way with the wind and it could contamine parts of saudi arabia and iraq. and it might not even prevent iran from building nuclear weapons. also if iran has a certain new type of anti-air defense bought from russia (there are rumours that such a transaction happened) israeli airforce would lose about 20-30% of their airforce. so they might have to use missiles for such an undertaking.

[KC]

Israel is already in a very vulnerable position on the international stage; they are not going to attack Iran any time soon.

[Klaatu]

Oh great. The threat of another war. I say, send the leaders, and just the leaders, to duke it out.

After all, isn't it a nation's leaders that start wars anyway? The average Joe Blow does not pick fights with the
average Joe Blow in another country; it is the leaders themselves that do these dirty deeds. So let them fight!
The winner keeps his country's honor; the loser (preferably the attacker) gets to pick a new (sane this time!) leader... :)

[KC]

Wow I've never heard that one before anywhere you should write a book!

[it_ain't_me]

i don't think the u.s. will ever be crazy enough to attack iran beyond the level of limited skirmishing. as for an iraq-style occupation, i'd like to see them try. iran is a much bigger country than iraq, much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous than iraq, with a better trained elite military force, and with a national history that goes back further to before ancient greece (which is of course accompanied by an immense national pride). there is simply no chance--none--that foreign troops could successfully subdue the iranian population they way they have done through divide-and-conquer methods in iraq. this pretty much leaves any attacking force with few options beyond high altitude bombing. but the iranian air force is nothing to laugh at (several squadrons of F-14s, F-5s, and more), and their ground-to-air defenses are quite good (see here: http://defense-update.com/2005/12/irans-point-defense-upgraded.html). i honestly don't think the u.s./nato will ever attack iran, no matter how badly they may want to. it isn't a war they could win.

[Devrim]

I don't think that the US will invade Iran either.


iran is a much bigger country than iraq, much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous than iraq,

This isn't true though. Iraq is about 75% Arab, whereas Iran is at most 65% Persian.



Iraq
Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs) 74-76%, Kurds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people) 20-22%, Turkmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Turkmen), Assyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people)/Chaldean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Christians) and other approximately 5%.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq#cite_note-4)



CIA World Factbook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_World_Factbook), states Iran's ethnic groups as following: Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people) 51%, Azeris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeris) 24%, Gilakis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilakis) and Mazandaranis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazandaranis) 8%, Kurds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds) 7%, Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs) 3%, Lurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs) 2%, Baloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch) 2%, Turkmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people) 2%, other 1%.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Iran#cite_note-worldfactbook-8). Other sources mention different statistics, Library of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress) disregards ethnic groups along the Caspian Sea's shore (such as the Mazandaranis, Gilakis and Talysh) and comes into these numbers: Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people) 65%, Azeris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeris) 16%, Kurds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds) 10%, Lurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs) 6%, Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs) 2%, Baloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch) 2%, Turkmens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmens) 1%, Turkic tribal groups (e.g. Qashqai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qashqai)) 1%, and non-Persian, non-Turkic groups (e.g. Armenians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians), Assyrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people), and Georgians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgians)) 1%

Devrim

[Palestine]

Oh great. The threat of another war. I say, send the leaders, and just the leaders, to duke it out.

After all, isn't it a nation's leaders that start wars anyway? The average Joe Blow does not pick fights with the
average Joe Blow in another country; it is the leaders themselves that do these dirty deeds. So let them fight!
The winner keeps his country's honor; the loser (preferably the attacker) gets to pick a new (sane this time!) leader... :)

Ok, Israelis are eager for a war, but Israel acts as a bully that kicks weak and helpless people, but when it comes to the big guys they just threaten, now they have to do something to keep their status amongst their neighbors, to stay the bully of the hood.

The upcoming is just a matter of time, everyone knows that the next war, won't be like 1967 or 1948. This time either Israel defeats the neighbors once and for all, or the Israelis have to start packing, and move somewhere else. Iran is no joke, they have highly trained army, and they have high tech weapons, so its not going to be any trip, and this could escalate on so many levels, and we may face a WW III, as for the article that antifa posted, I read it in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, now the jet carrier Lincoln is staying in the Mediterranean because the Iranians threatened to attack or get on board any ship that reaches the Persian Gulf, and the Saudis cleared an air passage for the Israeli jet fighters on their way to Iran, they may deny that, but I trust the Israeli media on that one, and the pressure the US government puts on Saudi Arabia is more than enough to make them do it, after all Saudis hate Iran more than Israel.

[Antifa94]

Meh, maybe just an air strike and scud missile retaliation...I doubt a full scale war.. and definitely NOT wwIII

[Palestine]

Meh, maybe just an air strike and scud missile retaliation...I doubt a full scale war.. and definitely NOT wwIII

Trust me it will be, first of all any Israeli leader will try to take out Hezbollah if he succeeds then he will win the elections FOR EVER.
And Iran will try and attack Israel if they succeed then they make them self a regional power.

[gorillafuck]

The US is already very tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel is already under very heavy international criticism. They're not going to invade Iran, at least not for a while.

[Palestine]

The US is already very tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel is already under very heavy international criticism. They're not going to invade Iran, at least not for a while.

Who mentioned an invasion, is not possible, they may do an air strike, but the reply is going to be heavy from Iran

[Boboulas]

Who mentioned an invasion, is not possible, they may do an air strike, but the reply is going to be heavy from Iran

That was his point. Why launch an airstrike or 2 to leave you open to heavy iranian retaliation?

Art of war 101: Fight when you are strongest, evade when you are weakest.

I wouldnt expect any kind of american led attack until the situations in iraq and afganistan are firmly in the US's favour.

[Antifa94]

...which will be never.

[it_ain't_me]

I don't think that the US will invade Iran either.



This isn't true though. Iraq is about 75% Arab, whereas Iran is at most 65% Persian.



Devrim

ok, just religiously, and slightly less so ethnically. either way, my impression is that iran's cultural cleavages are insignificant compared to those in iraq (where the shi'a majority more or less stepped to the side and let the americans duke it out with, at first, the politically sunni-dominated iraqi army, and later, the sunni-dominated insurgency). only much later did the shi'a develop into a full-blown insurgent force against the u.s., and the kurds of course have never turned against the united states. i don't pretend to be a middle east expert, so you can tell me if you think i'm wrong on this, but iran seems to me to be incomparably more unified than iraq, and it seems to me that it would not devolve into the kind of factional and sectarian struggles which have rendered the iraqi resistance to occupation much less effective than it otherwise could have been.

the most important cleavage in iraq has been the religious one, afaik. the majority of shi'a in iraq are arabs, as are the majority of sunnis, so i don't think that the civil war which loomed for a while in iraq (due to al qaeda provocations) was about ethnicity. but while in iraq the sunni/shi'a split is about 35/60, and there were longstanding tensions over the minority group being politically dominant, in iran it is more like 8%/90% (i.e. much more homogeneous), and the majority rules.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia1.htm

[Devrim]

The US is already very tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel is already under very heavy international criticism. They're not going to invade Iran, at least not for a while.

Certainly this is true. The US does not have the resources to launch an invasion of Iran for the foreseeable future.


Who mentioned an invasion, is not possible, they may do an air strike, but the reply is going to be heavy from Iran

An air-strike is possible. The question is how would Iran reply.


The upcoming is just a matter of time, everyone knows that the next war, won't be like 1967 or 1948. This time either Israel defeats the neighbors once and for all, or the Israelis have to start packing, and move somewhere else. Iran is no joke, they have highly trained army, and they have high tech weapons, so its not going to be any trip, and this could escalate on so many levels, and we may face a WW III,

I don't see how the Iranian army could be drawn into it at all. I think that if Iran is attacked its response will be to hit back through its proxies. We could expect attacks on coalition forces in Iraq by the Shia militias, Hezbollah to launch rockets from Lebanon, with HAMAS doing the same thing from Gaza, and possibly Iranian support for insurgents in Afghanistan.

The US is certainly aware of this and the danger of escalation that it posses. I think that it is stretched enough as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and could really do without the Iranians backing the insurgencies there. I think that for all of its bluster it would be extremely reluctant to either strike Iran, or sanction an Israeli strike against Iran.

The problem is that US control over Israel is not as strong as it once was and Israel could react on its own if it felt Iran was nearing nuclear weapons.


ok, just religiously, and slightly less so ethnically. either way, my impression is that iran's cultural cleavages are insignificant compared to those in iraq

Yes, that is probably true. The other difference about Iraq was that it had a minority group in control of the state, the Sunni Arabs.


i don't pretend to be a middle east expert, so you can tell me if you think i'm wrong on this, but iran seems to me to be incomparably more unified than iraq, and it seems to me that it would not devolve into the kind of factional and sectarian struggles which have rendered the iraqi resistance to occupation much less effective than it otherwise could have been.

We probably have a very different view of the nature of the resistance, but I think it is at least possible that the fractures within Iraqi politics were one of the things that caused the strength of the resistance. Basically you had a minority group, which had been in power for so long kicked out of power. Perhaps the strength of the Sunni resistance is, at least in part, due to the fact that they felt a need to assert themselves.

Devrim

[it_ain't_me]

We probably have a very different view of the nature of the resistance, but I think it is at least possible that the fractures within Iraqi politics were one of the things that caused the strength of the resistance. Basically you had a minority group, which had been in power for so long kicked out of power. Perhaps the strength of the Sunni resistance is, at least in part, due to the fact that they felt a need to assert themselves.

Devrim

so you don't think the resistance to occupation would be *much* stronger in iran than it has been in iraq (assuming a foreign power was even able to win the conventional war and get to the point of occupying)? after all, you agreed that the cultural divisions are less in iran, but then you say that the cultural divisions in iraq strengthened the resistance, so it would follow that the resistance in iran will be weaker. but the sunni resistance in iraq has been small compared to what groups like the mahdi army and the badr brigades would have been able to achieve, given their massive size and degree of organization, if they had been more focused on fighting americans rather than forming death squads to retaliate against sunnis for al-qaeda's car bombings; if it had not been for this religious strife, baghdad would have probably been such a powerful center of anti-occupation resistance that the whole city would have become a no-go zone for the american and british troops. the shiite militias were an extremely large and powerful force, but they pretty much just stood by while sunni cities like fallujah were destroyed. also, out of curiosity, what is your view of the nature of the resistance? (i am a bit afraid of the answer, but we can always agree to disagree).

[Devrim]

so you don't think the resistance to occupation would be *much* stronger in iran than it has been in iraq (assuming a foreign power was even able to win the conventional war and get to the point of occupying)?

I think it is all hypothetical. I don't think that there will be an invasion of Iran.


after all, you agreed that the cultural divisions are less in iran, but then you say that the cultural divisions in iraq strengthened the resistance, so it would follow that the resistance in iran will be weaker.

I used phrases and words like 'at least possible', 'perhaps', and 'at least in part'. I am certainly not saying that this is something that is certain, but just that it is possible.


but the sunni resistance in iraq has been small compared to what groups like the mahdi army and the badr brigades would have been able to achieve, given their massive size and degree of organization,

Most of the activities of the 'resistance' have been the work of Sunni militias, certainly higher than their numerical strength in the country.


if they had been more focused on fighting americans rather than forming death squads to retaliate against sunnis for al-qaeda's car bombings;

But the sectarian conflict is linked to these organisations very being at least as much as 'fighting the Americans' is.


if it had not been for this religious strife,...

If it had not been for this religious strife, there probably wouldn't be Shia militias.


the shiite militias were an extremely large and powerful force, but they pretty much just stood by while sunni cities like fallujah were destroyed.

Of course, why should they have intervened when the strength of their enemy was being destroyed.


also, out of curiosity, what is your view of the nature of the resistance? (i am a bit afraid of the answer, but we can always agree to disagree).

That basically the resistance is a collection of anti-working class sectarian/ethnic terror gangs, which are just as reactionary as the occupying forces.

Devrim

[t.shonku]

Well,I don’t know if war between Iran and West will ever occur,only time will tell that.But according to my point of view if US will attack Iran it will cause USA so much damage that USA might not recover from it ever, moreover this wounded USA will become vulnerable to external attack and internal civil war.Offcouse this war will also end in total obliteration of Iran.
Now let me tell you all as to why I think so,militarily speaking war with Iran won’t be like a walk in the park,it won’t certainly be like 1991 gulf war bcoz before Gulf war of 1991 Iraq faught in a war with Iran and wasted a lot of its military resources in the process thus it was already vulnerable,on the other hand today’s Iran is a country which has a well stocked arsenal (which includes ballistics missile,cruise missile etc) and is fresh for fight,it is well supported by China and Russia,they also have a highly motivated military with a glorious military past of Iran-Iraq war.Politically speaking Iraq was not liked by anyone during 1991,Iraq’s imperialist policy was not taken nicely by even Arabs,moreover during 1991 Kremlin was crumbling,China wasn’t a major world player then so Iraq was all alone,moreover Iraq made the biggest blunder of attacking Kuwait thus was potrayed as the aggressor but with Iran it will be a different story,Iran shares a good relation with many Arab nation,it’s policy is not imperialistic but rather anti-Jewish (which is welcomed by most Arabs).Moreover today USA is the one who is weakened militarily,economically,politically and socially because of its frequent imperialistic pursues in Iraq and Afganistan.Today Kremlin is no longer controlled by any weakling like Gorbachev but by a iron man called Putin,todays Russia is stronger than most of you think.Today China is also a major world power.Moreover Russia won’t keep quiet if something happens in Iran because Iran is close to Russia,if USA gets a hold of Iran and establishes its bases there then Russia will become vulnerable,so Russia will give Iran it’s military support quietly.
Moreover if Iran gets attacked radical groups like Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda will take revenge on “infidels”.

[t.shonku]

Israel is already under very heavy international criticism. When the hell did Israel gave a dam about that???

[GreenCommunism]

Moreover Russia won’t keep quiet if something happens in Iran because Iran is close to Russia,if USA gets a hold of Iran and establishes its bases there then Russia will become vulnerable,so Russia will give Iran it’s military support quietly.
well russia has approved sanctions, perhaps it did reluctantly but russian doesn't support iran that much.

When the hell did Israel gave a dam about that???
they do care, wars are often won through the media which is why they put alot of emphasis on covering their blunders with biased bullshit.

also airstrikes on iran aren't a joke or a simple war. the destroyed nuclear plants will cause radiation. if this thing ever happens we should be extremely pissed about it, it means radiation for the iranian and some neighbours too.

[~Spectre]

If Russia were serious about protecting its Iranian business interests, they'd simply hurry up and send the all the S-300 missiles.

[IslamicMarxist]

Who cares what Russia, China, America, and all the superpowers think. China and Russia are far more capitalist than Iran. I think it's ridiculous that you guys are arguing whether Iran is worthy enough to be supported. Iran is not Capitalist, Socialist, Fascist or anything else. It is purely Islamic. And if the Iranian people wanted Capitalism Iran would be capitalist. If they wanted Socialism, it would be socialist, If they wanted fascism(Yes, their is a fascist ayran party in Iran, it's members recieve harsher punishments than Communists!)
Than Iran would be Fascist. Iran's people are very religious, I myself went their once. Back to the subject, no one on earth can break Iran. You all do not realize how much influence Iran has in the middle east. If iran wanted, it could spark Revolutions in Kuwait, Saudi arabia, egypt and all of the other puppet states. It will if it is attacked. No one will dare fight Iran. Every country in the MIddle east has a Party of God(Hezbollah). Hezbollah is also an international Islamic party.

[it_ain't_me]

If it had not been for this religious strife, there probably wouldn't be Shia militias.

as it stands, this claim is ridiculous; it was not religious strife that encourages the militias to come into existence, since they came into existence before the religious strife. they came into existence, firstly, because it was inevitable that the shiites would organize themselves politically, and vigorously so, after the fall of the baathist regime opened up a space for them to do so; that some of them would organize under the guidance of charismatic religious leaders was also basically inevitable. secondly, because the iraqi population had a desperate need for day-to-day security which the occupying forces and the non-existence iraqi police force were not providing. their role in the religious strife came later. however, i said it is ridiculous ''as it stands'' because i agree that there's no doubt the religious strife has altered the character of the shiite militias.

[Devrim]

as it stands, this claim is ridiculous; it was not religious strife that encourages the militias to come into existence, since they came into existence before the religious strife.

This is a very interesting claim. One could say that this religious strife has been in evidence since at least 661. Do these parties predate that?


they came into existence, firstly, because it was inevitable that the shiites would organize themselves politically, and vigorously so, after the fall of the baathist regime opened up a space for them to do so;

The Shia groups didn't just spring into existence after the fall of the Saddam regime. Of the two main Shia political organisations Ḥizb al Daʿwa al-Islāmiyya dates back to 1957, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to 1982. Both of them pre-date the fall of the 'Ba'athist regime'*, and the first even the Ba'ath taking power in1963.


however, i said it is ridiculous ''as it stands'' because i agree that there's no doubt the religious strife has altered the character of the shiite militias.

It has not altered the character of these groups. Sectarianism is a key part of the existence of these groups going back to their formation.

Devrim

*I don't really like the phrase regime as whilst there is nothing wrong with the phrase itself, it tends to have an impression of 'states the west disapproves of'. We never hear about the 'Obama regime', do we?

[Devrim]

Iran is not Capitalist, Socialist, Fascist or anything else. It is purely Islamic.

Of course Iran is a capitalist state. What mode of production do you think is dominant there? 'Islamic' is not a description of a mode of production.


And if the Iranian people wanted Capitalism Iran would be capitalist.

It is.


If iran wanted, it could spark Revolutions in Kuwait, Saudi arabia, egypt and all of the other puppet states.

They tried to after 1979, and basically failed.


Every country in the MIddle east has a Party of God(Hezbollah).

First there is not a Hezbollah in most countries of the Middle East and second even then they are generally different parties that share the same name.


Hezbollah is also an international Islamic party.

No, it isn't.

Devrim

[it_ain't_me]

devrim, you seem to be having a little trouble following the train of our conversation. here's me, bringing up ''religious strife'' and clearly referring to the strife that has been generated by the war and occupation:


if they had been more focused on fighting americans rather than forming death squads to retaliate against sunnis for al-qaeda's car bombings; if it had not been for this religious strife, baghdad would have probably been such a powerful center of anti-occupation resistance that the whole city would have become a no-go zone for the american and british troops.

here's you, quoting my reference to religious strife since the occupation, and saying that shiite militias formed as a result of ''this religious strife'':

if it had not been for this religious strife,... If it had not been for this religious strife, there probably wouldn't be Shia militias.

then i reply that shiite groups formed before the post-war religious strife. and you all of a sudden stop talking about the post-war religious strife, and switch the topic to religious differences that stretch back to an eternity ago:
This is a very interesting claim. One could say that this religious strife has been in evidence since at least 661. Do these parties predate that?

please try to stay on topic. i brought up the topic of religious strife; when i did, i was obviously referring to post-invasion events (notice how i said that ''this religious strife'' was the result of al-qaeda car bombings, and that i was talking about it in the context of the potential for an anti-occupation resistance coalition). if you want to talk about ancient differences, fine, but please don't quote me and pretend that this is what i was talking about.

now,
The Shia groups didn't just spring into existence after the fall of the Saddam regime. Of the two main Shia political organisations Ḥizb al Daʿwa al-Islāmiyya dates back to 1957, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to 1982. Both of them pre-date the fall of the 'Ba'athist regime'

since all i ever said was that the militias existed before the beginning of the post-war religious strife, thank you for proving my point.

[Palestine]

Of course Iran is a capitalist state. What mode of production do you think is dominant there? 'Islamic' is not a description of a mode of production.


Actually there is, first of all in the Qur'an it mentions how deals should be done, and how the banking system should work. You would think the Qur'an is a book of religion and that's it. It's not! It's a book that tells you how to live.





It is.

It's not



They tried to after 1979, and basically failed.

They failed yes, but nowadays Iran is a lot more stronger, and capable. It's just that these puppet regime are strong by means of military and intelligence, you will be announced counter-state. What these puppet regimes do is starve the people, so they will have no time for revolution and their number one priority is to put food on the table, besides that they don't let intellectuals speak, and when they do and criticize the state, they simply vanish or fall from balcony (because they felt dizzy)

[Antifa94]

By the way Iran canceled their shipment, so no WWIII.

Also Devrim do you have any information on the kurdish uprising of march and august 1979, 1983, and 1985? in Iran, that is.

[Antifa94]

Palestine, Iran is still capitalist.
Someone said that Islam is the most capitalist of religions, but I disagree, at least pious and scholarly muslims do not live a capitalist lifestyle, more an ascetic, intellectual one.

[IslamicMarxist]

To Palestine: You took the words right out of my mouth :)

[Klaatu]

Palestine, Iran is still capitalist.
Someone said that Islam is the most capitalist of religions, but I disagree, at least pious and scholarly muslims do not live a capitalist lifestyle, more an ascetic, intellectual one.

This is like Buddhist Monks and Catholic Monks. Vow poverty and earn the key to happiness and knowledge. Money and wealth cannot be taken with you on the road to the afterlife (or whatever lies in the next plane of existence one encounters on his way to the ultimate level of the Astral Plane...)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/FlammarionWoodcut.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg

[Devrim]

Actually there is, first of all in the Qur'an it mentions how deals should be done, and how the banking system should work.

It is true. It describes in immense detail how certain financial transactions can should be preformed. This in itself makes it anti-communist. The ideal society envisaged by Islam is one based on money and property. Communism is the anti-thesis of this.


And if the Iranian people wanted Capitalism Iran would be capitalist.

What is the economic basis of the system in Iran? It is the expropriation of wage labour, and private property. This is capitalism.


What these puppet regimes do is starve the people, so they will have no time for revolution and their number one priority is to put food on the table, besides that they don't let intellectuals speak, and when they do and criticize the state, they simply vanish or fall from balcony (because they felt dizzy)

This sounds pretty much like Iran to me.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also Devrim do you have any information on the kurdish uprising of march and august 1979, 1983, and 1985? in Iran, that is.

I know that Imam Khomeini declared Jihad against the Kurds in 1979.

Devrim

[Devrim]

devrim, you seem to be having a little trouble following the train of our conversation. here's me, bringing up ''religious strife'' and clearly referring to the strife that has been generated by the war and occupation:

My point is that these parties are sectarian parties first and foremost, and that this sectarianism has deep historical roots in Iraq.


if it had not been for this religious strife, baghdad would have probably been such a powerful center of anti-occupation resistance that the whole city would have become a no-go zone for the american and british troops.

And this is the point that I take issue with. The 'resistance' is not some unified movement, but a collection of very different groups, the majority of them being based on sectarianism.

Sectarianism is not something incidental to the resistance movement, but is an intrinsic part of it.


i brought up the topic of religious strife; when i did, i was obviously referring to post-invasion events (notice how i said that ''this religious strife'' was the result of al-qaeda car bombings, and that i was talking about it in the context of the potential for an anti-occupation resistance coalition).

But 'this religious strife' has its roots in events of the past, and certainly going at least back to Saddam's Iraq, which was a state run by an ethnic-religious minority group.

Devrim

[Palestine]

Ok I read this in the local newspaper, Israel deployed couple of aircrafts in Saudi Arabia in the procedure of preparation for the attack against Iran.

[IslamicMarxist]

The Islamic society cares little about buisness and money, something you westerners do not understand. An islamic society is a society of faith and brotherhood, not economy. The economy is not capitalist. It contains more socialist elements than capitalist. Such as zakat.

Think rationally. We all agree the western media lies ALOT about communist nations. So what makes you think they will tell the truth about Iran? Everything you know about Iran is a LIE. I've been there almost every year. It's a great place. The country was just born.. 30 years after the soviet union's revolution, it wasn't perfect economy now was it? I'm not against simple reforms, but regime change is obviously pro western.

Hezbollah is an international party. No, not all of them are exactly the same, but they carry similar flags and are allies, like communist partys. The regime in Iran is Hezbollah of Iran. Do not speak about Islam until you fully read the Koran. I read the communist manefesto. Do not take verses from western media....

[IslamicMarxist]

I dare any nation to try to strike Iran. Iran has a tremendous amount of influence. Iran could destroy zionist puppet saudi arabia in one day. Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and now Turkey, pledged to join Iran as an Allie if Israel attacks. Plus, the thousands, if not millions of militiamen near US bases in the middle east ready to die for the Palestinian cause and Iran. In Yemen, in Bahrain, and more, they are all ready to die. Even the Lebanese Communist party will fight too. Iran will also set all the oil in the gulf on Fire if this happens.

[IslamicMarxist]

I know that Imam Khomeini declared Jihad against the Kurds in 1979.



Devrim

No, only the Kurdish seperatists. (Khomeini later allied himself with some to fight against Neo Nazi Saddam Hussein.) And besides, alot of Kurds are backed by Israel. Not to be rude, but you cannot change anything in Iran. The whole west tried regime change and FAILED. no one can break Iran, I'm sorry, but you bashing Iran will not change anything... Iran will remain the way it is, you must accept that. Iran emerged in a time where both the USA and Soviet Union were imperialists. The west cares little about Marxism anymore.. Islamism is the new bolshevism... But Marxism will rise again, not in Russia, but in Latin America. .

[Boboulas]

^^^sounds like the ramblings of those people you see holding signs saying "the end is near!!"


Islamism is the new bolshevism

yeaaaaaa.....no.

[Devrim]

The Islamic society cares little about buisness and money, something you westerners do not understand. An islamic society is a society of faith and brotherhood, not economy. The economy is not capitalist. It contains more socialist elements than capitalist. Such as zakat.

Zakat is not at all socialist. There is nothing socialist about the rich giving crumbs to the poor.


The economy is not capitalist.

What is the economic basis of the economy then?


Think rationally. We all agree the western media lies ALOT about communist nations. So what makes you think they will tell the truth about Iran? Everything you know about Iran is a LIE. I've been there almost every year. It's a great place. The country was just born.. 30 years after the soviet union's revolution, it wasn't perfect economy now was it? I'm not against simple reforms, but regime change is obviously pro western.

I have been there myself too, three times. It is our neighbour.


Hezbollah is an international party. No, not all of them are exactly the same, but they carry similar flags and are allies, like communist partys. The regime in Iran is Hezbollah of Iran.

So the Turkish Hezbollah, a Sunni Kurdish group almost certainly set up by the state to combat the PKK is the same as the Lebanese version to which it is totally unrelated. I think not.


Do not speak about Islam until you fully read the Koran. I read the communist manefesto. Do not take verses from western media....

I have.


Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and now Turkey, pledged to join Iran as an Allie if Israel attacks.

I haven't seen this in the news, but even if it were true, it would have much substance to it as the talk of the Turkish navy escorting aid ships to Palestine, or Prime Minister Erdoğan's promise to go on a an aid ship himself.

Devrim

[t.shonku]

Originally posted by IslamicMarxist
You all do not realize how much influence Iran has in the middle east. If iran wanted, it could spark Revolutions in Kuwait, Saudi arabia, egypt and all of the other puppet states.Is it that easy?:confused:

Originally posted by GreenCommunism
well russia has approved sanctions, perhaps it did reluctantly but russian doesn't support iran that much.perhaps the Russians fears Iran's ultra Islamic ideology,but even then it will support Iran covertly Russian's are famous for lending covert support.But one thing is for sure and that is Chinese support bcoz China needs cheap oil.


The Islamic society cares little about buisness and money, something you westerners do not understand. An islamic society is a society of faith and brotherhood, not economy. The economy is not capitalist. It contains more socialist elements than capitalist. Such as zakat.yeah,Righhhhhhhhhhht............:confused:

That's why we see some of the richest people coming from middle east like those sheikhs who owns oil rigs



You people like it or not like it but you need support of Russia,China and N Korea along with your Islamic allies to be successful against USA.This isn't going to be like Iran-Iraq war.USA is a serious military powerhouse.

[it_ain't_me]

And this is the point that I take issue with. The 'resistance' is not some unified movement, but a collection of very different groups, the majority of them being based on sectarianism.

Sectarianism is not something incidental to the resistance movement, but is an intrinsic part of it.

of course i don't support attacks on other iraqis on the basis of religion or ethnicity. but occupied people have every right to stage attacks on occupying troops making their lives miserable. you are conflating two separate activities, and when it comes down to it, no one knows exactly who is doing which kind of activity, in the sense of knowing who pulled the trigger on this occupying soldier and for what reason, or who kidnapped and murdered this young man in baghdad simply for being a sunni who was caught living in the wrong neighborhood. writing off the one activity because of the other makes no sense.

[Devrim]

of course i don't support attacks on other iraqis on the basis of religion or ethnicity. but occupied people have every right to stage attacks on occupying troops making their lives miserable. you are conflating two separate activities, and when it comes down to it, no one knows exactly who is doing which kind of activity, in the sense of knowing who pulled the trigger on this occupying soldier and for what reason, or who kidnapped and murdered this young man in baghdad simply for being a sunni who was caught living in the wrong neighborhood. writing off the one activity because of the other makes no sense.

I don't think that shooting US soldiers offers anything to the working class anyway, but the two activities are completely interlinked. There is no point in wishing for a pure non sectarian resistance. It doesn't exist. They are not two separate activities. The reality of the resistance is ethnic terror gangs.

Devrim

[it_ain't_me]

They are not two separate activities. The reality of the resistance is ethnic terror gangs.

Devrim

bullshit. they are clearly two different activities. some iraqis engage in one, some engage in the other, and some engage in both. you have no proof that every iraqi who has picked up a gun to shoot an american has been sectarian whatsoever--and you won't ever have proof of it, because it isn't true. so i am left to simply wonder what your agenda is in smearing these people you know nothing about, pushed by desperation to go to the extreme lengths of risking their lives in the defense of their neighborhoods, as ''ethnic terror gangs''.


I don't think that shooting US soldiers offers anything to the working class anyway

shooting a burglar that breaks into my house and menaces my family doesn't ''offer anything to the working class'' either. i don't think the iraqis defending themselves from the daily abuses of occupying troops give a shit whether you think that their actions offer anything to the working class. i certainly don't. goodbye.

[Devrim]

so i am left to simply wonder what your agenda is in smearing these people you know nothing about,

Considering I live in a neighbouring country to Iraq, have been there and read Arabic, I imagine I know a little more about it than you. As for my agenda, it is promoting class politics.


some iraqis engage in one, some engage in the other, and some engage in both. you have no proof that every iraqi who has picked up a gun to shoot an american has been sectarian whatsoever

I don't claim that everybody has done it, but if you look at the organisations involved, the vast majority of them have been involved in both.


pushed by desperation to go to the extreme lengths of risking their lives in the defense of their neighborhoods, as ''ethnic terror gangs''.


In many case this is true. They are pushed by desperation Shia attack Sunni, attack Kurds, attack Yazidi, attack Türkomen. It is a vicious spiral of sectarian violence, which people get sucked into through desperation.


shooting a burglar that breaks into my house and menaces my family doesn't ''offer anything to the working class'' either.

No, but then I presume you wouldn't try to paint it as political either.


i don't think the iraqis defending themselves from the daily abuses of occupying troops give a shit whether you think that their actions offer anything to the working class. i certainly don't. goodbye.

I doubt they 'give a shit' about your 'support' either.

Devrim

[Palestine]

If you all claim there is no war on Iran, then can someone explain to me why did the Admiral Michael Mullen came to Israel and his visit was not scheduled, to discuss joint security operations and the Iranian threat????
Does anyone have a good explanation besides, a plan to attack Iran???

[IslamicMarxist]

Is it that easy?:confused:
perhaps the Russians fears Iran's ultra Islamic ideology,but even then it will support Iran covertly Russian's are famous for lending covert support.But one thing is for sure and that is Chinese support bcoz China needs cheap oil.

yeah,Righhhhhhhhhhht............:confused:

That's why we see some of the richest people coming from middle east like those sheikhs who owns oil rigs



You people like it or not like it but you need support of Russia,China and N Korea along with your Islamic allies to be successful against USA.This isn't going to be like Iran-Iraq war.USA is a serious military powerhouse.

Look I don't think you guys know what my views are. I am totally against those rich people middle eastern sheikhs. They defy true Islam. I am for the oppressed of the world, and I hate the leaders of UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Such.

[IslamicMarxist]

Zakat is not at all socialist. There is nothing socialist about the rich giving crumbs to the poor.



What is the economic basis of the economy then?



I have been there myself too, three times. It is our neighbour.



So the Turkish Hezbollah, a Sunni Kurdish group almost certainly set up by the state to combat the PKK is the same as the Lebanese version to which it is totally unrelated. I think not.



I have.



I haven't seen this in the news, but even if it were true, it would have much substance to it as the talk of the Turkish navy escorting aid ships to Palestine, or Prime Minister Erdoğan's promise to go on a an aid ship himself.

Devrim

Yeah you are wrong there. Islam is not one economic Ideal I may add. There are three types of Islam. Capitalist Islam(Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other wahabists, who do not follow most Islamic values.) Socialist Islam(Used during the Soviet unions birth in central asia.) and Finally, Islam itself(Iran.) Islam itself is neither capitalist nor Socialist. You think the only two economies are capitalism and socialism? Islam is not Christianity.

[IslamicMarxist]

Zakat is not at all socialist. There is nothing socialist about the rich giving crumbs to the poor.

What are you talking about? In an Islamic Society, if there even is a poor, they would be far more successful than the Modern Middle class.


What is the economic basis of the economy then? Three Types. Islamism, Socialist Islam, Capitalist Islam.




I have been there myself too, three times. It is our neighbour. In all respect, I highly doubt that.




So the Turkish Hezbollah, a Sunni Kurdish group almost certainly set up by the state to combat the PKK is the same as the Lebanese version to which it is totally unrelated. I think not.

WOW. I know some groups carry the name Hezbollah, but that is not the type I am talking about. I am talking about the Shia Islamic Groups. You may have not heard of them, but thank your media.


I have.

Once again, I highly doubt you read a Koran made by a Muslim that is not in English or Western Language.


I haven't seen this in the news, but even if it were true, it would have much substance to it as the talk of the Turkish navy escorting aid ships to Palestine, or Prime Minister Erdoğan's promise to go on a an aid ship himself.

WOW BIG SUPRISE. Of course you haven't seen this in the news, what kind of revolutionary are you, you seem more like a sheep who believes anything he sees or not sees in the news. There are alot of things you have not seen in the news, and it may surprise you.

[Devrim]

Three Types. Islamism, Socialist Islam, Capitalist Islam.

Religions do not change the basis of the economy.


Islam itself is neither capitalist nor Socialist. You think the only two economies are capitalism and socialism?

What is the basis of the economy? Is there wage labour? Is there private property?


In all respect, I highly doubt that.

What do you doubt, that I have been there or that Iran is a neighbour of Turkey?


WOW. I know some groups carry the name Hezbollah, but that is not the type I am talking about. I am talking about the Shia Islamic Groups. You may have not heard of them, but thank your media.

Yes, I have heard of them. I lived in West Beirut for nearly a decade. I am just pointing out that not all the groups who call themselves Hezbollah are the same as you claimed.


Once again, I highly doubt you read a Koran made by a Muslim that is not in English or Western Language.

The Koran in my house is in Turkish and Arabic.


WOW BIG SUPRISE. Of course you haven't seen this in the news, what kind of revolutionary are you, you seem more like a sheep who believes anything he sees or not sees in the news. There are alot of things you have not seen in the news, and it may surprise you.

One would expect it to be quite big news here in Turkey. You could of course provide a link.

Devrim

[IslamicMarxist]

Religions do not change the basis of the economy.



What is the basis of the economy? Is there wage labour? Is there private property?

Devrim

Like I said, it depends how you look at it. Islam can be used as Socialist and Capitalist.


What do you doubt, that I have been there or that Iran is a neighbour of Turkey?

Devrim

I doubt you have been to Iran, If not more than ten places in Iran...


Yes, I have heard of them. I lived in West Beirut for nearly a decade. I am just pointing out that not all the groups who call themselves Hezbollah are the same as you claimed.Devrim

The Houthis in Yemen are in fact Hezbollah Party. I argued with a Saudi Nationalist who claims that there is even a Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia.


The Koran in my house is in Turkish and Arabic.

I doubt you read the whole thing.


One would expect it to be quite big news here in Turkey. You could of course provide a link.

I travel to the middle east quite often. I know many things based on knowledge not acquired from any form of Media, including the internet or television, newspapers or anything like that, if you understand.

Devrim[/QUOTE]

[Devrim]

Like I said, it depends how you look at it. Islam can be used as Socialist and Capitalist.

No, it doesn't. A society with private property, which is what Islam advocates can not be socialist.


I doubt you have been to Iran, If not more than ten places in Iran...

You are free to, but as I said I have three times.


I doubt you read the whole thing.

Again, you are free to, but as I said I have.


I travel to the middle east quite often. I know many things based on knowledge not acquired from any form of Media, including the internet or television, newspapers or anything like that, if you understand.

I live here. Anyway I somehow suspect that if the Turkish Government had "pledged to join Iran as an Allie if Israel attacks" as you claimed, it might have made the Turkish media, and not be some secret piece of news that you pick up somehow on your holidays.

Devrim

[IslamicMarxist]

No, it doesn't. A society with private property, which is what Islam advocates can not be socialist.Devrim

In terms of what Mecca was before Islam, Islam was a major revolutionary extreme at that time period. Not allowing private property would make no sense to the Arabians. It would make no sense to the world. You cannot compare the time standard from then to now. What Islam for the good, was more radical than what communism preached during dark times. People thought Muhammad was crazy for only allowed "four wives"(marry two, three, four, but if you cannot handle it only one" this is metaphorical, it is not possible to handle four wives).


You are free to, but as I said I have three times. Really? When and where. This is surprising to me.




Again, you are free to, but as I said I have.

That seem's very odd, for a person with an open mind to Read the Koran and not find the slightest beauty of the verses and be sympathetic toward the religion, but than of course I question you having an open mind, maybe when you were reading it you kept saying "It is all untrue, it is all untrue it is all lies" in your head. I'm not going to judge atheism, that is there choice and they hold good arguements, but I have a open mind when I read athiest books I don't think "It is all lies, it is all lies, it is all lies". I have an open mind toward everything.


I live here. Anyway I somehow suspect that if the Turkish Government had "pledged to join Iran as an Allie if Israel attacks" as you claimed, it might have made the Turkish media, and not be some secret piece of news that you pick up somehow on your holidays.

It's no secret, that's the damn point. It is no secret in the Middle east, but it is in the west. It is common knowledge, that was my POINT.

[t.shonku]

Look I don't think you guys know what my views are. I am totally against those rich people middle eastern sheikhs. They defy true Islam. I am for the oppressed of the world, and I hate the leaders of UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Such.

Don't get me wrong I respect Islam and Arabs.There are lot of good things in Islam like opposing gambling.Besides I would like to express my solidarity with people of Palestine

[Devrim]

In terms of what Mecca was before Islam, Islam was a major revolutionary extreme at that time period. Not allowing private property would make no sense to the Arabians. It would make no sense to the world. You cannot compare the time standard from then to now. What Islam for the good, was more radical than what communism preached during dark times. People thought Muhammad was crazy for only allowed "four wives"(marry two, three, four, but if you cannot handle it only one" this is metaphorical, it is not possible to handle four wives).

This isn't an Islamic argument. According to Islam the Koran provides a universally true message, and laws, not one just applicable to Arabia at the time of Mohammed.

Islam did offer a profound change in its historical context in many ways, but now is nothing but conservative and reactionary. If you take a historical materialist approach this is logical. However, Islam doesn't take this approach. Nobody say let's scrap the Sharia because although it applied to Arabia in the 7th Century, it is pretty meaningless today.

Nobody says things, for example, like "well because of the lack of refidgeration in the Middle East at the time, and because of pork's connection to various diseases when it wasn't kept properly, it was sensible to ban eating it. Now, however, none of it is relevant so we should start again.

The Koran outlines Muslim rules for living full stop. It does not lay out Muslim rules for living in Arabia at the time of the profit.

It envisages a society based on money and private property, which is the anti-thesis of communist ideas.


Really? When and where. This is surprising to me.

All three times since the revolution, but not in the last 15 years. I spent most of the time in Tehran, and the North West, but have been to other parts of the country too.


That seem's very odd, for a person with an open mind to Read the Koran and not find the slightest beauty of the verses and be sympathetic toward the religion,

I didn't say I didn't see any beauty in it. I actually think the Koran is one of the great achievements of world literature, and is poetically very beautiful in Arabic, though clumsy and awkward in the two translations I have seen, English and Turkish.

However, this doesn't make me sympathetic to the religion. Many people think that Shakespeare wrote beautiful poetry, but aren't foolish enough to base their world view about it being literally true.



Anyway I somehow suspect that if the Turkish Government had "pledged to join Iran as an Allie if Israel attacks" as you claimed, it might have made the Turkish media, and not be some secret piece of news that you pick up somehow on your holidays. It's no secret, that's the damn point. It is no secret in the Middle east, but it is in the west. It is common knowledge, that was my POINT.

It is just strange that nobody knows about it in this country then. What people do know is that after the incident with the flotilla the government came out with a lot of bluster including threatening the send a naval escort to for the next flotilla, and even Prime Minister Erdoğan threatening to go on it himself. Both of these proved to be nothing more than wind with the state backing down on them within a few days. Turkey has made no commitment at all to launching a war against Israel if there is a strike against Iran, but even if it had they wouldn't be words that one could take seriously. One can expect a very strong verbal reaction from the Turkish government if Iran is attacked by Israel, but nothing on the military front.

It may well be 'common knowledge' amongst believers in a 'united front of all Muslims against Israel', but they tend not to have much connection to reality. Turkey will follow its own interests, which don't involve war with Israel.

Devrim

[Boboulas]

Why would turkey attack israel if israel attacked iran? The Turkish, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi and Saudi states are all in America's pocket. The only threat of retaliation would be from palestinians, lebanon and syria all of which would be beatable for israel.

I also find it strange how i and no one else have not heard of this secret agrement between turkey and iran, which leads me to belive its either a total fabrication or one of the best kept secrets ever.

[Devrim]

I also find it strange how i and no one else have not heard of this secret agrement between turkey and iran, which leads me to belive its either a total fabrication or one of the best kept secrets ever.

I think that it is just wishful thinking from people who have got a bit over excited about a few anti-Israeli phrases from the Turkish PM.


Why would turkey attack israel if israel attacked iran? The Turkish, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi and Saudi states are all in America's pocket.

I think that Turkey, at least, is trying to plot an independent role. Of course it is still a NATO member, and to a certain extent a US client, but it has clashed with them on some major points, the most obvious being the refusal to let the US use bases in Turkey in the last Iraq war.

Devrim

[IslamicMarxist]

This isn't an Islamic argument. According to Islam the Koran provides a universally true message, and laws, not one just applicable to Arabia at the time of Mohammed.

Islam did offer a profound change in its historical context in many ways, but now is nothing but conservative and reactionary. If you take a historical materialist approach this is logical. However, Islam doesn't take this approach. Nobody say let's scrap the Sharia because although it applied to Arabia in the 7th Century, it is pretty meaningless today.

Nobody says things, for example, like "well because of the lack of refidgeration in the Middle East at the time, and because of pork's connection to various diseases when it wasn't kept properly, it was sensible to ban eating it. Now, however, none of it is relevant so we should start again.

The Koran outlines Muslim rules for living full stop. It does not lay out Muslim rules for living in Arabia at the time of the profit.

It envisages a society based on money and private property, which is the anti-thesis of communist ideas.Devrim

It outlines rules, but in reality, all of these "whacky" rules have great meaning.
There is meaning beyond everything in the Koran, and these rules make great sense scientifically. The life that Islam points out for Muslims, most if not all who follow it without extremism lead happy lives. Sharia is not meaningless. It can work if the people are educated. Yeah there are safe ways to eat Pork, but there wasn't during Muhammad's time, and besides, it is a filthy animal anyway. I'm not here to debate Religion true or false, I'm here to debate whether it works politically.



All three times since the revolution, but not in the last 15 years. I spent most of the time in Tehran, and the North West, but have been to other parts of the country too.

Wow. Now I know why you think that way. A lot has changed since fifteen years.... Most corruption from Khatami is gone thanks to Ahmadinejad.

[Devrim]

I'm not here to debate Religion true or false, I'm here to debate whether it works politically.

No, on this thread you are discussing Turkey's foreign policy and the secret agreements that you heard about on your holiday, which nobody in this country has heard about at all. Please continue.

Devrim


Wow. Now I know why you think that way. A lot has changed since fifteen years.... Most corruption from Khatami is gone thanks to Ahmadinejad.

I was there before Khatami became President as well.

Devrim

[t.shonku]

Watch this very very interesting video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4p1kD8CZX8&feature=fvw

Iran's missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL0_dPt6ETE&feature=related

Lets kick uncle sam's butt