Bush government preparing war against Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Sim, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I just found this:


    Your thoughts?

    Do you think it's true, and if yes, what do you think about it?

  2. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    It would be criminal negligence for a president to fail to have plans for war with a country as hostile as Iran is. Does this mean that Bush is going to attack Iran just to have something to do? No. Iran's leader, Ahmadinejad has said several times, he's not shy, that he has visions that reveal to him that he is to launch nuclear war as the entry of the Mahdi, the hidden imam into the world. He has also said, several times, that he would be ready when he had 3,000 centrifuges. He reached that milestone just a few days ago. We are one vision away from nuclear holocaust. The first strike could very well be multiple strikes on Israel and Iraq a situation that would necessarily require our action.
  3. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    The Democrats aren't going to vote to authorize war with Iran based on the support of 35-40% of the public (probably 90% of whom would be Republicans), nor do I think Bush has much appetite for invading Iran right now when his legacy hinges on leaving Iraq in a position to defeat the insurgency.
  4. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    Then I guess when Iran attacks we'll all get fitted for burkas and turbans. Iran will surely attack. probably from installations in south or central America with operatives already here to add to the mix. Without a leader having the will to defend us, the US population will be pretty much on it's own.
  5. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    North Korea was a sure fit to attack us as well, and look what happened there, they de-nuclearized. As much as I see Iran as a threat, I don't see them just up and attacking the United States. Why didn't they do it when our troops were else where fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, that would've been the prime time. If it wasn't then, it's going to be a while before Iran attacks. And wheres your evidence stating that Iran will invade soon?

    I don't know, I've heard too many of these types of quotes in the past years: "Iran is sure to attack. North Korea will attack. The communists will attack. Hussein will attack."

    They're all doomsday prophecies that fell through.
  6. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    North Korea is LYING, like they always have lied.

    I think Iran will launch some kind of attack, if not on us directly, then on neighboring states or on Israel. Why? Because thats what Ahmadinejad said that's what Allah commanded him to do. Ahmadinejad is a Mahdeist. He has visions that tell him that when he starts nuclear as the Mahdi will return.
  7. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    So what? Kim Jong Il will do whatever he thinks will keep himself in power, and will gain his regime the international respect he feels it deserves. Since he's somewhat insane, it's not easy to predict his exact actions, but he's not crazy enough to think that he could survive attacking the US.

    Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to make that decision. First of all, any significant decision by the government has to be made with the approval of Khamenei and the other Ayatollahs. Secondly, Ahmadinejad's popularity has been slipping, including among conservatives who feel he shouldn't be going out of his way to piss off the rest of the world, and there's no guarantee he'll be reelected in 2009 (before Iran is expected to have a working nuke).

    Lastly, Iran's foreign policy actions often have more to do with internal power struggles than with ideology or a particular agenda. While this certainly wouldn't preclude an attack, it's highly unlikely that the reasons for Iran attacking the US or Israel would be to bring about the apocalypse.

  8. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    I doubt Iran as a country is going to go nuclear on the USA or Israel, as their president is far more radical than the population itself. If you read a lot of stories, Iran's pretty ready to reconcile and has more ability to do so than NK. So, I don't think war's going to happen, as there is much more hope of a diplomatic solution to come. Also of course, Bush is incredibly unpopular, and Congress, as well as the nation, has quite a bit of insight into his ability to sucessfully invade a nation.

    Tipsy, if you want to say that North Korea's lying, you actually have to prove it. The IAEA confirmed they've shut down their reactor, and without their reactor they have no enriched material.
  9. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    That they're going to push yet another campaign on the evil Ahmadinejad, the nuclear holocaust, the horrible mullahs who stone people to death, want to murder all israelis, and are killing Americans en masse in their proxy- war, together with sunni and shiite terror groups(and specially al-quida) in a global conspiracy to destroy the west(and particularly the US)?

    While making a point of highlighting how tough the republicans are on the evildoers, compared to the wishy- washy liberal haircombers - so that they in turn do not oppose a minor bill to 'condemn' Iran that - oops - happen to be a much less aggressive bill than the one initially suggested, which means it's a 'compromise'? Which then the administration will claim is a call to increase the pressure on Iran, and that no option is off the table, while we wait for the desperation to materialise in a plausible attack on US 'interests', in the region. Which will then be blamed on Iran so as to justify an attack, together with the 'vast host' of evidence that you need to be a terrorist lover not to see?

    No, I couldn't possibly believe that could be happening, and are happening right now, after the entire Iraq- thing, now could I.
  10. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Is Ahmadinejad a most ugly political person? Without doubt. But would he start a war? I doubt it. Iran's leadership (in which the mullahs have the last say, not Madmanonjihad) is not crazy. They know if they detonated just one single, small nuclear weapon outside their borders, Israeli and US retaliation would turn Iran into glass within minutes. They are not crazy, and they are not suicidal. They have a distinct sense of self-preservation.

    Deterrance has worked to keep a huge superpower (the USSR) in check, why shouldn't it work for a small developing country which at best has half a dozen small nukes of the brand America had in the 1950s already?

    Starting a war against Iran would be about the most stupid thing Bush could do. Because what would be the consequences?

    Let's not forget Iran has about four times the population Iraq has, and is militarily much better equipped than Iraq was before the invasion. A war against Iran wouldn't be a piece of cake as Iraq was, militarily. They can actually defend themselves. So you had to calculate thousands of American deaths in case of war. Also, Iran could blockade oil deliveries in the Persian Gulf, resulting in astronomical oil prices and an accordingly severe economic crisis in the West.

    And as long as draft isn't reinstituted, America simply doesn't have the resources to fully invade Iran with ground troops (even if it had, how would you stabilize Iran after an invasion? Just look at the complete clusterfuck Iraq is today). So the remaining option would be bombing Iran, without ground troops.

    Also, the Iranians, many of which are very sceptical towards the mullahs and their regime, would unite with their government in case of an American attack.

    Also, an attack would not be able to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but could delay it at best.

    Such a war would likely not be limited on Iran, but there is a good chance it will spread over to Syria and Israel, possibly even Saudi Arabia, with uncalculable negative consequences.

    So what would be the result of such a war? Millions of innocent deaths, a slightly damaged Iran which would recover soon, retake their nuclear program within a couple of years, stabilized because the Iranians would stand to their government. A complete destruction of all credibility and legitimacy the US is still enjoying in the eyes of the world, incalculable consequences for global economy, and possibly neverlasting new wars and civil unrest in the whole Middle East -- up to the possibility of total chaos.

    Is that really what you want?

    I'd say deterrance is the way to go regarding Iran: Make treaties with the neighbouring countries, and make sure the Iranians know any attack they may start would result in immediate retaliation. That should keep Iran in check, it would destabilize their regime as in case of the USSR on the long run.

    That's how the Cold War was won, why shouldn't it work against Iran?

Share This Page