The coming war against Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Factinista, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Factinista

    Factinista New Member

    In the last several months I have been hearing the drumbeats of war start again, the president has proclaimed that more harsh measures are to be taken against Iran. His administration recently declared that Iran is funneling weapons, funds, and training to Shite extremists. He has declared time and time again that Iran is part of a so called "Axis of Evil", full of evil men who's only desire is to create death and destruction.

    Today I ask, are we any better than Iran if WE create death and destruction?

    Many don't think that Bush has the guts to invade Iran but it seems clear to me that the ONLY thing Bush ever uses for his disisions are his "guts". For over 6 years he has declared a "war on terror",an abstract idea with no tangable way of fighting and no end in sight. He has started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now it appears to me that he wants to expand this war to a third front.

    I would not put it past the president to take (knowingly or not) false information of a "secret Iranian operation" inside Iraq and use this as a base for a declaration of war and subsiquent bombings. Aside from the worldwide uproar this would bring, aside from the unrest and hatred that would spring from the middle east, and aside from the expanded pressure on strategic and energy supplies, we would only cause more bloodshed and death that could have been avoided.

    Why is it that our leaders are so quick to bomb and destroy, and so afraid to pick up the pen and talk to our enemies? Surely the pen should be mightier than the sword.
     

  2. I think the topic is kinda ironic- As humans, you'd think that civilized order without violence is what separates us from being mere animals. Supposedly, this is the cause we are fighting for in Iraq, yet we use violence to....I don't know? Prove that we are only animals?

    It's funny, because I remember a history class of mine where the teacher nonrhetorically asked us what the rest of the world personifies the US as. The answer was a cowboy, and this seems SO true for Iraq. Bush is Wyatt Earp and the Middle East is the Wild West. Really it's amazingly ironic. You could say that the Wild West is representative of East vs West and our activities there are a representation of the Wild West, coming full circle.

    It's like Corona's avatar on this forum: We're gonna free the shit out of you (with a picture of our flag and many bombs in the foreground).
     
  3. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    There are indeed some signs the US government is preparing for a war with Iran: Last week, there were news about additional aircraft carreers being deployed into the region, and now Bush has signed that authorization of chasing and killing alledged Iranian spies in Iraq. And of course rhetorics by the Bush government are not exactly pacifying either.

    That said, I think it's unlikely Bush will wage a war against Iran. He would have about zero support in the public or Congress for such a war.

    Sure, he doesn't really need that support and he has nothing to lose ... but still, I think it's unlikely.
     
  4. dls

    dls Guest

    I think it would be a fair statement to say that Iran had best be mindful of any real or perceived actions by their government towards our troops on the ground.
    I don't think President Bush would bat an eye when and if the time came.
     
  5. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    A war against Iran would be a huge mistake, I think. Iran is not a piece of cake as Iraq was. And the whole Middle East would be on fire ... including all the nasty consequences such as a shortage on oil deliveries.

    If Bush is crazy enough to start a war against Iran, better get on your warmest clothes.
     
  6. The idea is to destroy Iran's military, destroy their infrastructure, and effect "regime change".

    The Neocons call this "creative destruction".

    Be on the lookout for a Gulf of Tonkin type incident and for an increase in anti-Iranian Pentagon propaganda.
     
  7. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Iran went to the state is was today because of our meddling with their affairs through the institution of the Shah. Until the recent presidental election, there had been a trending towards a moderate Islamic state that was happy with its own culture, but tolerated the West. To invade because of one extremist leader is a bad idea, as it simply makes the populace despise your country.

    Plus, Iran has a much better military, navy, and much more mountainous terrain. It'd be difficult and arduous.

    It's a mistake to think about doing it now, there are still a lot of other options (I mean, if trends continue, I think it wouldn't be that hard to get a UN coalition together when the time came to truely act).
     
  8. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    The Neocons have proven one time already that they are ideologues completely out of touch with reality. I don't think I'm too pessimistic when I say that such a bombing would only cause the situation to deteriorate:

    The whole Iranian people, even those generally critical of their regime, would rally behind their leaders and perceive this US attack as an unprovoked attack on their home country.

    The Iranian nuclear program could not be stopped, but delayed for a couple of years at best.

    The result would be an even much more radicalized Iran -- if not a large-scale war in the entire Middle East. Syria may be inclined to join Iran and attack Israel, and Hizbollah would see their last chance by throwing all they have against Israel as well. Of course Israel would have to "react" ...

    Hard to imagine how Jordania and Saudi-Arabia would behave ... of course they are not fond of Iran's Shia influence in the region, but even them might bow down in front of the angry "Arab street" calling for retaliation against the "evil imperialistic US aggression against Islam". Maybe the fundamentalists would see their chance to topple the pro-Western regime.

    The result would be a completely destabilized Middle East, just like Iran looks today. And thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims willing to join bin Laden et al in their "jihad" against the West.


    Ignoring these prospects and hoping on "constructive destruction" is naive beyond belief.
     
  9. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    It depends on a few things. Is death and destruction the intended outcome? If not, is it a necessary consequence of our (or their) actions? If so, is the primary goal worth the expected harm?
    The "War on Terror" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying that we're fighting a war to eliminate fundamentalist Islamic ideologies. Nor is it a war that Bush (or even the West in general) started. Selling Pepsi with Britney Spears ads is not an act of war.
    The President does not have the power to declare war, and Congress has pretty much stated that it will not authorize any use of force against Iran, especially not in retaliation for any actions it takes in Iraq. As for "false information", do you honestly doubt that Iran is actively looking to destabilize Iraq?
    At what cost? Is avoiding war worth allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or continue to interfere in Iraq?
    It isn't if our interests and those of our enemies are entirely opposed, and in this case they do seem to be. Given the world's (likely) weak response were Iran to develop nuclear weapons, it's in their best interests to continue work on them. This is not in the interests of the US. Stability in Iraq would result in a powerful nation on the borders of Iran, with which it has, in living memory, fought a very bloody war. This would not be in Iran's best interests, but it is in ours. Nor is acceptance of Israel in the best interests of the Iranian government.
    So what areas of commonality are there we can work from? What can we possibly give Iran in return for cooperation with us in any, if not all, of the areas I just mentioned? Really the only thing we can do is make a credible threat that if Iran does not cooperate with us that we will make the consequences far greater than anything it could hope to gain. If we're not willing to do that, then we might as well concede to them regional dominance (or at least the ability to compete with Saudi Arabia for regional dominance).
    As for what action we should take in regards to Iran, I think invasion is right out, largely for the reasons Kazmarov mentioned. About the best we can do is threaten airstrikes against military facilities and economic sanctions, though I highly doubt the rest of the world's willingness to go along with us on either front, and not just because they dislike/distrust Bush. Russia, China, France, etc. have plenty of reasons (primarily economic, i.e. oil) to oppose taking any harsh actions towards Iran.
     

Share This Page