I see slowly the same pattern unfolding as before USA attacked Iraq ,first demonize and vilifiy its people describe their leaders as bloodthirsty tyrants worst than Stalin/Mao combined,tell lies about WMD and fictionnal Al-Qaida cooperation plus of course fucking “THEY ARE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY” story that is when gullible American/British/Australians are stupified/bamboozled enough and the time to start another war.
We still have some SERIOUS unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing that would get us into another war is a direct attack by another sovereign nation.
Besides, I don’t see the Bush administration making any long-term war plans. There are only 69 days before the election. If any of these plans snuck out, there would be a considerable danger of a Kerry landslide.
Heh, Irans Mullahs even though product of a domestic revolution, are a threat to freedom and democracy. Don’t be so gullible to think that the US/UK coalition of the willing etc are going to somehow invade Iran. With Iran, the course of change needs to be different, some students and sections of the populace do see the need for change, it needs to be fostered without direct outside intervention or even US support, it just needs to be left alone.
What we’ll probably see is an Iran with most of its institutions intact, without the religious conservatives keeping hold of the strings of power.
cite?
cite?
No lies needed, actually.
Wow, for someone who claims he wants to be a mod, it’s funny how you can’t even figure out where to post a rant…
-
There seems to be at least some evidence of Iranian nuclear programs being not all that far from having a bomb. Their negotiations with the UN and Europeans seem to imply as much.
-
Iran seems to be playing a double game with the US wrt the war on terrorism. They have supported Al-Qaeda in the past but also seem to occasionally want to at least superficially help us against them.
-
Iran is almost as involved in Iraq as the US it seems sometimes. It’s hard to tell from all the different stories whether Iran has some consistent plan for what they want the endgame in Iraq to be or are they just flailing about what with the (ongoing) Chalabi debacle, rumors of Iranian agents blowing up the oil pipelines, and the various theocratic Shi’ite factions.
-
I tend to think that Iran hawks in the US would have a much harder sell then Iraq hawks did. For one thing, locating troops to fight in Iran without abandoning security duties in Iraq would be hard. For another, Iran is much bigger then Iraq and hasn’t been starved of weapons for a decade. Scrutiny over cassus belli will be much tighter, and a new war is unlikely to be popular given growing unease and regret over the Iraq war.
-
With oil prices relatively high knocking another country’s oil supplies off the market and rendering tenuous oil shipments through the gulf would not be good medicine for the US economy.
-
It seems unlikely that Haliburton (and similar companies) would view the chance to rebuild Iran as an opportunity, having been (and continuing to be) badly burned with the whole Iraq thing.
-
War with Iran would make Afghanistan even more problematic - making sure that the various foes of the new Afghan government are well equipped is probably within the ability of the Iranian government. If the situation gets bad enough because of another damnfool 'Merkin war all of the thousands of NATO and other troops engaged in Afghanistan might bug out.
-
There may be a limit to the number of Islamic countries we can invade before Musharraf can no longer maintain control of Pakistan
-
While a war or at least increased hositility/posturing between Iran and the US might be just the thing to boost the popularity of the theocrats I doubt they would be certain enough of that. I would imagine an Iran very accomodating of UN inspectors would be even harder to attack.
I guess in summary - the case for state sponsorship of terrorism and current nuclear weapons development against Iran is far stronger than ever the case was against Iraq. However, just as the 9-11 terrorists forever ruined the airlines for the ordinary decent highjackers who just wanted a decent flight to Cuba, the invasion of Iraq has most likely ruled out the desire and the ability to invade Iran
[QUOTE=chaparralv8) The only thing that would get us into another war is a direct attack by another sovereign nation.
.[/QUOTE]
That might happen . Gulf of Tonking, remember?
I personally hate to see another M.East nation being bombed to smitherings again by our valiant and heroic fighter pilots ,but you guys forgot about Irans nuclear programme.This is the sticking point in whole affair.If it comes to the war Israel is 100% behind it, but only our young GI-s will pay with their lives and Americans at home will pay out of their pocket billions.
Afghanistan was invaded shortly after we were attacked, on at least some measure of valid evidence. The war Iraq had some added support due to an easily recognizable villain: Saddam “Satan, your ass is gigantic and red” Hussein.
Unless Iran attacks us first (somehow difficult to believe), it’d be pretty hard to equally demonize even a pack of scowling ayatollahs.
Window of opportunity to attack Iran is slowly closing ,now is the best time because Iran nuclear program might be more advanced than we are being told ,and we are rather sure that they don’t have any nukes.(look at N.Korea ,they have bomb and are being treated with respect by Americans)
Also USA and GWB administration is so hated by Muslims around the world that fightinfg another war with muslim nation woul not make any difference to our status in the World.I think world actually expects Americans to do some stupid move like this ,how dummer can Dubya go?
Oh, and november elections would have to be postponed of course.
Are you going to offer any evidence for the claims you made in your OP?
Put up or shut up.
Undersecretary of State Bolton: Iran Could Make Nuclear Weapon Aug 19, 2004
Berlin rejects U.S. official’s claim on Iran’s nuclear program Aug 22, 2004
Crap. I forgot it was Bolton who was the source on Iran claiming to be on the verge of having nukes. Now I have to wonder if the Iranian nuclear threat is greater or more imminent than the Cuban Biochemical weapon threat.
The U.S. is not about to go to war with Iran. At least not by simply laying down an ultimatum and then invading if it’s not met, as they did with Iraq.
Still, war with Iran is possible, because Iran has threatened pre-emptive strikes against the U.S. and Israel. Also, I have my doubts about Israel’s willingness to allow Iran to get the bomb. I think a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is a likely prospect.
Also, Iran seems to be actively working to destabilize Iraq. Iranian intelligence agents have been captured by coalition troops. al-Sadr seems to be receiving funding and other assistance from Iran. There is some evidence of Iranian involvement in oil field sabotage. At some point, this may become a very serious issue. I don’t believe the U.S. will invade Iran with the intention of overthrowing it, but I could certainly see incursions by the U.S. military on Iranian territory in an attempt to thwart Iranian designs on Iraq. The U.S. has already been inside Syria on various missions.
I believe that the best hope for Iran is change from within, but that prospect is looking a lot less likely now than it did five years ago. The mullahs could remain in power there for decades.
You know, I was playing around with a globe the other day, when I noticed something that didn’t really dawn on me before.
Iran is right in between Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran was our target all along.
Paranoid speculation aside, we are hearing a lot of the same rhetoric. The words being used against Iran are the same words we just heard about Iraq. Except it seems that Iran really is racing for the nuclear bomb- and it’s no wonder. The United States has made it pretty clear that having nukes is the only real way to ensure your sovereignty against a country that now has a policy of striking pre-emptively and ousting governments unilaterally and seemingly at will.
The US gov’t & establishment seems to have a monster grudge against Iranian theocrat/democrats. I think some of these people think that the Iranians really should have stayed under the Shah. It’s a shame that they don’t recognize that Iran’s culturally conservative but democratic institutions are like Anglo-American institutions of a few centuries ago, that Iran is on a path we as democrats should welcome, & that they’re are damn sight better than juntas.
Of course, American administrations, whether from the left or the right, may have anti-democracy elements for some twisted “national interest” reason. Nationalism is programmed from childhood, idealism is mocked as contrary to self-interest. 
Pro-war apologists have been saying this for a while.
I’m repeating myself here, but it’s the truth…
It is unlikely that we’ll invade Iran (or anywhere else, for that matter) due to the simple fact that our supply of troops would be insuficient for such an undertaking.
Maybe. But what if we could somehow sucker the Israelis into conquering Iran for us? All gain, no pain! :dubious:
Didn’t stop us from invading Iraq.
Anyway, I think it’s damn near impossible the current admin. would start anything before the election. I vote for February 2006, barring any preemptive strikes by Israel on Iran (thereby starting a hideous chain of expanded warfare in the region).
Oh, come on, now. I don’t trust Bush as far as I can throw him, but you don’t REALLY believe the “we’re only doing this to protect our sovereignty from the evil United States” line that SK and Iran have been throwing around, do you?
First, as already mentioned, we do not have sufficient troops for an invasion of Iran. Iran, having a serious military, would involve a much large troop commitment than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Second, we don’t have enough money. We’re $500,000,000,000 in the hole this year. With the baby boomer retirement coming down the line in less than ten years. Now Bush promised us we would only spend two billion reconstructing Iraq, with the rest supposedly coming from oil revenues. Instead, we’ve spent 130 billion and counting. So even those disposed to trust the guy would be suspicious if he claimed we could invade Iran on the cheap.
Third, our supply lines for an invasion of Iran would have to go through Iraq, because Pakistan and Turkey would certainly not let us through. Bad idea. Too many roadside bombers.