 |
Hello:
Is Bush going to attack Iran? Should he? I think he is. I'm not sure whether he should or not. I don't want them to have a bomb, but who am I? Their enemy's have 'em. Of course, they want one. If we attack them, they're going to strike us back - and they CAN. Iran is NOT Iraq.
excon
Remember, Bush cannot attack any country.
I sure hope that the US does not play a part in attacking Iran. We should not attack Iran. It was completely wrong to attack Iraq - I hope we do not make the same mistake twice.
Sorry guys but with the amount of troops and material in Iraq, all that is needed is another excuse to march over the border.
The way Iran is moving with their nuclear ambition, I have a feeling this will be enough for Bush.
Can you say WMD ;)
Either that or "evidence" will emerge that the "insurgence" are coming from/funded by Iran.
Remember what happen in Vietnam with Cambodia/Laos.
Too right curlyben. It seems that we should now be afraid, very afraid! The consequences of too much power I guess
Correct me if I am wrong ,but to attack Iran would be a act of war. Bush can not declare war on Iran without congresses OK. What Would be the chance of congress believing the little turd again?
For the record: The one who proposed, and every sucker who bought into, going to Iraq - was/is a total idiot. Don't be fooled folks: They're all idiots.
If the US goes into Iran, we should all be resurrecting the bomb shelter plans from the
50's and start dgging. Going into Iran is the very worst mistake that can be made. Iran not only has the money, the weapons, the organization, the allies, the fanatics, and the venomous hatred for the US, that there would be nothing left. I used to believe in the war effort in Iraq and I am thankful that Saddam was executed (or was he?), and I still strongly support all the armed forces there, but I no longer support the politicians and heads of government that started this mess.
Sending Congress, the Cabinet, and our Executive Chief over there to fight would end the war in quick haste. I personally would like to see the Congressmen from my state over there, as none of them ever saw a minute of military service, so what in the world do they really know?
I agree with Rick about the idiot thing and I agree with Savage about who in their right mind would believe Bush again?
My feeling is Bush will attack Iran. Is this right, no. Just like it was not right to attack Iraq. So if Bush does, or should I say he already has started the ball rolling on the ww3. I do believe it is coming, and Bush unfortunately will not stop his war mongering.
Joe
Hello again:
I think he's baiting the Iranians into responding to our attack on the Iranian mission.
Well, he's got two more years. Do we let him? Or do we stop him? I'm talking impeachment or a coup. I don't care. He can't be allowed to take us down that path.
excon
Bush technically can't attack any country, but what does that really mean, I don't think a whole lot to the Bush Admin. The day after Bushs' speech, American troops crossed over to Iran and brought back prisoners(supposedly part of Al-Qaeda or some looming threat). I really really hope the Pres. Stops now, because if we go in there all hell is going to break lose. Can you imagine, more people dying, more reports of suicide bombers, secretarian violence not just escalating but exploding, our troops sent out for more tours, not to come home for years. How much more can our troops handle or their families. How many tours will each individual have to make? And of course, the whole wide world will be watching thinking, 'Yup, we told them, but they didn't listen... Click-and the world tunes us out. We cannot afford that.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But, the fanatics will have got to go before they attack Isreal. Isreal has nukes pointing at Iran now and they were going to push the button weeks ago. That has all been hushed and something is brewing. The guacomole is going to hit the fan to be sure, it's just a matter of when and who first. I think Isreal will start it and we will follow.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but Congress in 2001 gave the President the authority .But even if it did not ,the 'War Powers Act ' that the Democrats inflicited on the nation gives the president a set amt. of time to take whatever military steps he deems necessary before Congress can stop him . That was their cute idea of limiting Presidential powers .
I think the premise that should be asked is : is it acceptable for Iran ,run by crazy Mullahs and a messianic Ahamadjihad ,the Mahdi-hatter , to be in possession of nuclear weapons ? If you accept that then let's just put the nail in any thoughts of non-proliferation . The minute they have them is the minute all the gulf states take the steps necessary to obtain a similar deterent .
Well ,what is the harm in that ? Did not the US and Russia play a game of chicken under a similar scenario. Indeed we did . The assumption being that there are rational men at either end of the trigger . Do you trust them in the hands of folks who think it is their duty under Allah to blow themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors ? I think not .
Besides history is now revealing how close we came to the brink... and not just the Cuban missile crisis either .
Do I think the President plans to invade Iran ? No; not at this time . I think the build up of the fleet is designed to strengthen the US negotiating position ( does anyone really think there are no talks going on ? ) .
Would we be justified in doing so ? Absolutely . IED 's have 'made in Iran ' written all over them . We have uncovered documented evidence that Iranian agents have been active supporting both Shia and Sunni insurgents/jihadists.American troops are being killed by border crossers and neither Iran or Syria prevent it and indeed encourage it . The Mahdi-hatter has more than once threatened to close down the Straits of Hormuz,and that would in itself be an act of war that must at all costs be prevented .
The real issue is Iran meddling in Iraq. It is not Irans Nucleur program which can be considered more of a coupon or cheap pair of shoes instead of a pair of jimmy choos. America and Iran will negotiate (behind the scenes) for Iraq. Irans bark is way bigger than its bite and it is using it to shape our perceptions of them. A one minute story on the news on "Irans crazy president and his nucleur program" is way more powerful than Iran itself. Iran however does have the capability to undermine Americans in Iraq. Its more of a fly biting at the leg of a giant, it is painful and annoying. However Iran knows it can't take take control of Iraq and America knows that Iran can segment Iraq which undermines all the work. This will drive negotiations for an Iraq that isn't dangerous to Iran but will be seen as an American victory. Geopolitics baby, got to love em'!
Rhetoric and Reality (this is an article by bill friedman of strategic forecasting - the largest private intelligence gathering company outside of the cia)
Americans are extremely sensitive to the difficulties the United States faces in Iraq. Every nation-state has a defining characteristic, and that of the United States is manic-depression, cycling between insanely optimistic plans and total despair. This national characteristic tends to blind Americans to the situation on the other side of the hill. Certainly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated the difficulties of occupying Iraq -- that was the manic phase. But at this point, it could be argued that the administration again is not going to attack Iran. Lets take a look at the difficulties the Iranians might be having. And it is useful to consider the world from the Iranian point of view.
It is important to distinguish between the rhetoric and the reality of Iranian foreign policy. As in business, rhetoric is used to shape perceptions and attempt to control the behavior of others. It does not necessarily reveal one's true intentions or, more important, one's capabilities. To get past the rhetoric, let's begin by considering Iran's objective geopolitical position.
Iran sees the American plan to create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad as a direct threat to its national interests. Now, the Iranians supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; they wanted to see their archenemy, former President Saddam Hussein, deposed. But they did not want to see him replaced by a pro-American regime. Rather, the Iranians wanted one of two outcomes: the creation of a pro-Iranian government dominated by Iraqi Shia (under Iran's control), or the fragmentation of Iraq. A fragmented Iraq would have two virtues. It would prove no danger to Iran, and Iran likely would control or heavily influence southern Iraq, thus projecting its power from there throughout the Persian Gulf.
Viewed this way, Iran's behavior in Iraq is understandable. A stable Iraq under U.S. influence represents a direct threat to Iran, while a fragmented or pro-Iranian Iraq does not. Therefore, the Iranians will do whatever they can to undermine U.S. attempts to create a government in Baghdad. Tehran can use its influence to block a government, but it cannot -- on its own -- create a pro-Iranian one. Therefore, Iran's strategy is to play spoiler and wait for the United States to tire of the unending conflict. Once the Americans leave, the Iranians can pick up the chips on the table. Whether it takes 10 years or 30, the Iranians assume that, in the end, they will win.
Logic would seem to favor the Iranians. But in the past, the Iranians have tried to be clever with great powers and, rather than trapping them, have wound up being trapped themselves. Sometimes they have simply missed other dimensions of the situation. For example, when the revolutionaries overthrew the Shah and created the Islamic Republic, the Iranians focused on the threat from the Americans, and another threat from the Soviets and their covert allies in Iran. But they took their eyes off Iraq -- and that miscalculation not only cost them huge casualties and a decade of economic decay, but broke the self-confidence of the Iranian regime.
The Iranians also have miscalculated on the United States. When the Islamic Revolution occurred, the governing assumption -- not only in Iran but also in many parts of the world, including the United States -- was that the United States was a declining power. It had, after all, been defeated in Vietnam and was experiencing declining U.S. military power and severe economic problems. But the Iranians massively miscalculated with regard to the U.S. position: In the end, the United States surged and it was the Soviets who collapsed.
The Iranians do not have a sterling record in managing great powers, and especially in predicting the behavior of the United States. In large and small ways, they have miscalculated on what the United States would do and how it would do it. Therefore, like the Americans, the Iranians are deeply divided. There are those who regard the United States as a bumbling fool, all set to fail in Iraq. There are others who remember equally confident forecasts about other American disasters, and who see the United States as ruthless, cunning and utterly dangerous.
These sentiments, then, divide into two policy factions. On the one side, there are those who see Bush's surge strategy as an empty bluff. They point out that there is no surge, only a gradual buildup of troops, and that the number of troops being added is insignificant. They point to political divisions in Washington and argue that the time is ripe for Iran to go for it all. They want to force a civil war in Iraq, to at least dominate the southern region and take advantage of American weakness to project power in the Persian Gulf.
The other side wonders whether the Americans are as weak as they appear, and also argues that exploiting a success in Iraq would be more dangerous and difficult than it appears. The United States has substantial forces in Iraq, and the response to Shiite uprisings along the western shore of the Persian Gulf would be difficult to predict. The response to any probe into Saudi Arabia certainly would be violent.
We are not referring here to ideological factions, nor to radicals and moderates. Rather, these are two competing visions of the United States. One side wants to exploit American weakness; the other side argues that experience shows that American weakness can reverse itself unexpectedly and trap Iran in a difficult and painful position. It is not a debate about ends or internal dissatisfaction with the regime. Rather, it is a contest between audacity and caution.
The Historical View
Over time -- and this is not apparent from Iranian rhetoric -- caution has tended to prevail. Except during the 1980s, when they supported an aggressive Hezbollah, the Iranians have been quite measured in their international actions. Following the war with Iraq, they avoided overt moves -- and they even were circumspect after the fall of the Soviet Union, when opportunities presented themselves to Iran's north. After 9/11, the Iranians were careful not to provoke the United States: They offered landing rights for damaged U.S. aircraft and helped recruit Shiite tribes for the American effort against the Taliban. The rhetoric alternated between intense and vitriolic; the actions were more cautious. Even with the Iranian nuclear project, the rhetoric has been far more intense than the level of development seems to warrant.
Rhetoric influences perceptions, and perceptions can drive responses. Therefore, the rhetoric should not be discounted as a driving factor in the geopolitical system. But the real debate in Iran is over what to do about Iraq. No one in Iran wants a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and blocking the emergence of such a government has a general consensus. But how far to go in trying to divide Iraq, creating a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and projecting power in the region is a matter of intense debate. In fact, cautious behavior combined with extreme rhetoric still appears to be the default position in Tehran, with more adventurous arguments struggling to gain acceptance.
The United States, for its part, is divided between the desire to try one more turn at the table to win it all and the fear that it is becoming hopelessly trapped. Iran is divided between a belief that the time to strike is now and a fear that counting the United States out is always premature. This is an engine that can, in due course, drive negotiations. Iran might be "evil" and the United States might be "Satan," but at the end of the day, international affairs involving major powers are governed not by rhetoric but by national interest. The common ground between the United States and Iran is that neither is certain it can achieve its real strategic interests. The Americans doubt they can create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and Iran is not certain the United States is as weak as it appears to be.
Fear and uncertainty are the foundations of international agreement, while hope and confidence fuel war. In the end, a fractured Iraq -- an entity incapable of harming Iran, but still providing an effective buffer between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula -- is emerging as the most viable available option.
I think he should leave the middle east alone, save for exported goods and oil we should NOT TAMPER WITH COUNTRIES that have a chance of becoming a threat. The United States should not sacrifice any more of its people simply because it seeks to become allied with a country that does not appreciate the help they are being given.
If anything, there is work to be done here on our own soil, in my opinion.
*Partly a vent... my apologies if this offends anyone*
And the fact that I am not aware of the truth in your statement comes across to you, how? I am all too familiar with 'geopolitics', but you speak as if you've been untouched by such a word, so let me clarify WHY I posted what I did:
Two of my uncles suffer from 'Agent Orange', my grandfather had flashbacks from Korea and Vietnam until the day he died, my father and two aunts are getting stiffed by the VA, my husband has missed all but a few months of our children's lives and employers don't give a damn about me serving in the armed forces because I have no combat experience. I could go on, but I feel I've explained myself enough. Don't try to lecture me on sacrifice.
Bush won the last elections against a rival who was promising to end the war.
We will fight the Iranians sooner or later. I advocate a first strike to take them down. A surprise first strike will minimize our casualties. However, I don't think we should occupy Iran, just take their leadership out, destroy their weapons and any WMD capability. Once this is accomplished, we should leave immediately to avoid an insurrection. Believe me, we have already drawn the plans. The question is will Bush press the button?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think invading Iran would be nearly that easy. Also, invading a country, destroying all of their defenses and leaving immediately would not be well supported by many countries in my opinion, even if they are a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by John1865
It is certainly no secret that US military forces are already operating in Iran. You can Google articles going back two or three years outlining various covert, and not so covert, operations.
It is certainly no secret that the US will expand the war to other nations that are "on the top of the list" as Cheney puts it.
Should or shouldn't don't matter anymore... the US policy is to "stay the course"...
phillysteakandcheese:
We have had operations in many countries for numerous reasons, currently and in the past, but that doesn't mean we are about to declare war on them.
I highly doubt the U.S. is going to bomb Iran with nukes in the next few months. And neither a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, nor a new World War is on our agenda.
I don't have any experience with that site you linked, but a lot of their articles seem pretty ridiculous. Maybe I am biased, but I tend to ignore sites that claim the United States is planning a massive nuclear attack and genocide on the rest of the world, as their home-page does.
As the world becomes smaller, it becomes easier to see the elements at work. I am one who is very impressed by Punk's explanation. Sounds like someone paying attention to me. I would add only this. I believe its far more than national interest fueling this. The three faiths of Abraham are equally as woven into this as well and that cannot be ignored without consequences.
In very simplistic terms, I trust that sooner or later the Muslims and Christians will really go at it with the Jews watching from the sides. Sheer numbers in terms resources of these respective faiths makes this possible. Oh it may be hidden behind national interest but nothing has fueled more fighting over all of mankind's history than religious differences and the vast cultural differences those always bring with them. Religion is the first real politics born to humankind.
The question is, if that fight is a given-- is now the time to have it? Or to use a model from the recovery industry, is there any way to attempt an "outside intervention" or does it have to hit bottom first for everyone to figure out that fighting like this is disappearing as a sane means of solving things due to almost unstoppable worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Those who's way of life is disappearing will always fight to the death and do anything they possible can since they virtually have nothing to lose. So the question to ask is how do we stop the encroaching of one culture on another? Stop the proliferation of those religions that claim a right to that. And its amazing to me that I see many many many people all over the world beginning to look at the amazing connections to religious arrogance this all has. Changes are occurring there as we speak!
You may tell yourself its about oil or land or even nations. I think its also about deeply entrenched religious prejudices. Even religious prejudices that would keep Iraq fractured can and are likely to be orchestrated by bigger more sophisticated versions of the same thing. It can pattern much like a fractal, really. But it takes a world view to see it. All we need is the majority of people on earth to learn to respect differences and we may have a fighting chance at the human race surviving ourselves. Otherwise the two that go at it ensure that we all hit bottom together and who knows who survives then. We conduct wars like an alkie promises never to drink again the next miserable morning -- "Oh this is the last time!" LOL
I don't think any of the politicians (either side) involved with this see beyond that which suits them, which is a really poor strategy in any fight.
valinors_sorrow, I agree. I definitely think religion has a far greater role than oil and land. That is why the fighting existed in the Middle East before official boundaries and massive oil consumption existed, and why it continues to this day.
A large majority of wars throughout history were caused at least partially by religion. (All the more reason to be Atheist :P )
Even with our own presence in the Middle East, I cannot stand when I hear people say "Iraq is a war for oil," as it is totally unjustified and unwarranted. We obviously do have great interest in oil, but the war in Iraq gave / gives little, if any, benefit to our oil industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Only a fool woul attack Iran now or in the near future, so Bush needs close watching.
Should he? Only mif he uis sure they can launch WMDs againt the US within 45 minutes. Oh, on second thoughts, perhaps we ought not to put our trust in that one again.
If I was Iranian I might want a bomb, but they say they want nuclear fuel for domestic use, so why not trust them?
Where are we now? Oh, yes: Facts: the US does not have massive foreign support, even from the UK, and other nations' support in Iraq is tokenal where it exists at all. If GWB were to take all the US troops out of Afghanistan ("Mission Not Accomplished") and all the US troops out of Eerack ("Mission NOT Accomplished") there are still insufficient, personnel, weapons, ordnance, and support equipment available to mount more than a pin prick against the vast land mass of Iran.
Besides which, every good general knows that patient enemies will waith until you are exhausted, undersupplied, and overextended before launching a massive attack on your positions, so Bush needs to stand down and let someone with some understanding of foreign policy, middle east affairs, military strategy, logistics, and diplomacy get his body into the White House and into the seat of decisions before he offers the US and its people as a sacrificial lamb to an increasingly bold global terrorist network who will stop at nothing to punish the US for what it considers to be its crimes against Islam and humanity.
There has been enough hot air from this man to fill the upper atmosphere, enough sabre rattling rhetoric to sicken seasoned soldeirs, and enough excuses to keep millions of failing schoolchildren going for centuries without repeating one of them.
How would Americans feel if someone said to them, "If you make the atomic bomb we will obliterate you"? How would Americans feel is domeone else dictated their foreign policy, or decided who should leave the White House, and who could go into it? How would Americans feel if other nations decided they did not like the American way of life and used tons and tons and megatons of high explosives to get them to change their minds?
Why does anyone think that America is always right and non-Americans always wrong? Why does America call itself the greatest democracy in the world, when it is but one democratic country among others, some of which enjoy at least equal if not greater freedoms. When will Americans stop playing the part of a global bully and quietly and humbly take its place among the nations, insteading of trying to lord it over other countries?
Just in case this ruffles any feathers, I will state that I do not hate or dislike America, although I hate what it has come to stand for through the faltering hands of this present WH incumbent. and I claim my Constitutional right to say so in tis great democracy. It is time the USA looked at itself critically in the mirror of the wider world.
Staying the course when the course is futile is lunacy. Sheer lunacy. No one knows what 'staying the course' means, no on eknows what 'victory in Iraq' means, or how we will know when the course is done and the victory sure. It is fine to echo mindless rhetoric but our forces are paying with their limbs, their minds, and their lives. When was in military service no one guaranteed that my efforts would be in vain or even purposeful. You win some, you lose some, and that's the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillysteakandcheese
High school kids found with hit lists are tried as felons. How about George and 's list?
Quite right. The suggestion he made is simplistic. Typical of Bush and his adoring fans. What is signaslly lacking is any notion that invading Iran on any level would be done without some backlash from anyone? To get away scot free you have to make sure that no one knows who done it!Quote:
Originally Posted by justin85
So, is your military plan a bunch of pre-emptive strikes against all who look askance at the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by John1865
Does your attack list include Venezuela, Cuba, China, Indonesia, N Korea, and every other nation that holds a grudge against us? If so, then I conclude that you are either in the business of manufacturing or supplying military armaments and equipment. Those engaged in those and similar occupations ought not to influence a nations policies because they have too great a vested interest in death and destruction.
Winnie said, "Jaw-jaw is better than War-war!" How about talking, diplomacy, and peacemaking?
:eek:
Just as an interesting sidebar, for those who think and speak of there being no world peace, I say wait a minute... I have world peace, my world is peaceful! The only war worth fighting is the one between me and me and I won that one a long time ago. If anyone doesn't get the power in that simple, ancient and immutable law, then I would suggest rereading whatever spiritual scriptures one is inclined to trust -- its all in there.
Perhaps so, but YOUR world is not the whole world. You do not live in Darfur, Iraq, Indonesia, Australia, England, USA, etc, etc, etc, where there are despots, murders, druggies, crime, torture, and persecution, etc, etc, etc.. A 'world' that is unaware of or fails to admit the awful lots endured by many of their their fellow human beings is a delusion and is not in accord with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
What did Jesus mean when he said, "Bear ye one another's burdens" and "Be In the world but not OF it"? As Donne wrote, "Each man's death diminishes me because I am involved in Humanity." Every Christian that folows Jesus is also involved in humanity. The peace a Christian knows is the assurance of his hopes even in the midst of the trumoils and troubles in the midst of which he or she lives.
There are other wars to be fought besides our own internal or spiritual struggles, and these are the wars that disturb the lives and peace of our fellow beings. We cannot withdraw from these conflict and pretend they do not exist. The example Jesus set for those who would follow him, is to be prepared to give their lives for their brothers and sisters if necessary.
Jesus said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Jesus told his disciples that they were to "avoid the leaven of the Pharisees," but also that they were the leaven of the world. Leaven can do no good whether in the world or in dough unless it takes and active part in either. Having peace wihtin ourselves relative to our relationship to God and Jesus is something to be sought after, but we should remain enganed in the world and in the troubles of others that we might do all we can to secure peace for them, even against insurmountable odds.
If not me, who? If not now, when?
"I mhave a rendezvous with death at some disputed barricade."
Quote:
Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
Are you familiar with ":Infidels" by Ayeen Hirsi Ali, a Somali scholar now living in the USA? I believe you will find it a rewarding read.
I find it close to impossible to hold an ongoing discussion with people who demonstrate that they utterly missed the point I made. And for the record but not for any ongoing debate with you Morganite, I always found fighting for peace to be oxymoronic at best and certainly hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
"If not me, who? If not now, when?" LOL was EXACTLY my point, and not to be technical here but I made it first and you ignored it. Hmmm.
PS - I could have put some of these sentiments in a "rate this answer" little red box for you too, Morganite... except clearly I am not like you. I can express my disappointment without slapping any knuckles. It made me sad too in how much what you did resembled my dysfunctional family's way of operating. They would do something untrustworthy so I would retreat, they would express their disappointment at my retreat and then punish me! Now that's whacked. All good debaters know there must be both common ground and mutual respect. That is my explanation as to why you are no longer on my extended debate list which, by the way, is open to negotiations but not debate. I do hope you know the difference.
Uh, I guess so. :rolleyes: And more red boxes from you isn't going to win me back either.Quote:
Morganite disagrees: You miss the point I made by a mile. That seems to have developed into a habit with you. Each time I disagree with you you take it personally and hit the machine guns. Is that your notion of reasoned debate?
I do like your question but I have a question for you in 1917 russia opted out of the war and became what kind of countryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM. |