Ready for another new war?

[rjung]

@Weirddave

Uh… Has anyone actually looked at weather it would be possible to invade Iran, assuming we wanted to? He’s a hint: It wouldn’t.

We didn’t have the financial wherewithall to invade Iraq, either, and look where we are now. It’s established history that this administration doesn’t let inconvenient facts get in its way.

@Weirddave

I take that back, we could invade, and probobly destroy the Iranian army, but nothing further than that. We don’t have the troops necessary to properly secure Iraq right now, much less Iran too.

As long as we secure the oil fields and pipelines, that’s all that matters. Any nuclear materials can get snatched up by looters and Bush wouldn’t give a shit about it.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Weirddave

I take that back, we could invade, and probobly destroy the Iranian army, but nothing further than that. We don’t have the troops necessary to properly secure Iraq right now, much less Iran too.

Dude, you’re overlooking the very important fact that we can rapidly win over the hearts and minds of the Iranian people whom we shall free from the repressive theocracy that they don’t like. Haven’t you been following events in Iraq? Jeez!

An in other news (man I hate that phrase) they don’t speak “Persian” nearly as often as they speak "Farsi. " Just sayin
’

[Grey]

@Liberal

“Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka

Oh it’s not the bureaucracy that worries me Lib. It’s the potential for ambitious people to ride people’s fears and passions for their own ends.

I prefer long, boring discussions about where a country should go. They’re harder to hijack.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

Even in a post 9/11 world? Have we learned nothing?
No one is saying that we’re going to invade at this point, but several people have noted the frightening similarity between Bush’s remarks regarding Iran, and those he made two years ago when we “weren’t” going to invade" Iraq.

We were we saying we “weren’t gong to invade Iraq”? I always thought it was a distinct possibility. Look at the situation with Iraq 2 years ago, and explain how this compares to Iran:

1. We had fought a war with Iraq and had a dispute over whether or not they were in violation of the cease fire agreement.

2. Iraq was under severe UN sanctions, with a history of UNSC resolutions against them.

3. We were enforcing a no-fly zone against more than 1/2 of the entire country of Iraq.

4. We periodically made air strikes against Iraqi military installations.

[World_Eater]

@John Mace

We were we saying we “weren’t gong to invade Iraq”? I always thought it was a distinct possibility. Look at the situation with Iraq 2 years ago, and explain how this compares to Iran:

1. We had fought a war with Iraq and had a dispute over whether or not they were in violation of the cease fire agreement.

2. Iraq was under severe UN sanctions, with a history of UNSC resolutions against them.

3. We were enforcing a no-fly zone against more than 1/2 of the entire country of Iraq.

4. We periodically made air strikes against Iraqi military installations.

The situations as to why we might go blow them up are different, I don’t see anyone here stating they’re the same. What we’re saying is that Bush is using the same line of bullshit he already successfully used to go to war once, and we’re wondering if he intends to do so again.

[Alien]

@John Mace

We were we saying we “weren’t gong to invade Iraq”? I always thought it was a distinct possibility. Look at the situation with Iraq 2 years ago, and explain how this compares to Iran:

I actually agree with you, but I can’t resist a trip down momory lane:

President Bush poured cold water Wednesday on speculation that the U.S. will soon make a military move on Iraq, at the same time that a prominent Republican lawmaker denounced critics of the war option as “appeasers.”

Following a meeting of his top defense advisers in Texas, Mr. Bush went out of his way to ridicule media reports that the day’s agenda would include planning for a move against Iraq, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante.
…
The White House said Wednesday’s meeting at Mr. Bush’s ranch in Crawford was focused on long-term budget and strategy issues in defense. The president chose to emphasize that there were many methods other than war for replacing Saddam Hussein.

“Regime change (in Iraq) is in the interest of the world,” Mr. Bush said. “How we achieve that is a matter of consultation and deliberation.”

The president said “I am a patient man and … we will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/20/politics/main519200.shtml

This is Bush’s comments on August 21, 2002, only 2-3 weeks before the speech he made at the UN. At that time Cheney had been banging the war drum throughout July, and there had been “unformined reports” of special forces already on missions inside Iraq.

I think it’s more a question about resources and political capital, not arguments: Iran’s connection with Hezbollah, IAEA resolutions, and the al-Qaeda presence to name a few.

[Alien]

unformined = unconfirmed :smack:

[Sam_Stone]

Grey said:

Oh spare me. The problem of dual citizenship and various countries not recognizing the other’s claim is hardly a call to war.

This attitude pisses me off. This is not a ‘problem of dual citizenship’, and to suggest it is trivializes the issue to a degree that is offensive.

For others who may not know, the issue is this: A Canadian citizen visiting Iran took a picture of a prison, among other things (she was a photojournalist). She was arrested by the Iranian secret police and BEATEN TO DEATH. For taking a picture.

Oh yeah, this is just a bureaucratic matter of ‘the problem of dual citizenship’. Here’s a :rolleyes: right back at you.

[Grey]

My post was referring to someone using this incident as a caus belli to sign onto an American war with Iran. That idea does merit a :rolleyes: right there, unless you’d also like to send a few frigates to Saudi Arabia and shell them for William Sampson.

I have great sympathy for the woman’s family, and deep respect for the fact that she knowingly put herself at risk as a journalist. That said, according toForeign Affairs

6. LOCAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS

You are subject to local laws. A serious violation may lead to a jail or a death sentence. The jail sentence will be served in local prisons.

Canadians arrested or detained have the right to contact the responsible Canadian government office (embassy, high commission, etc.) listed below. Arresting officials have a responsibility to assist you in doing so. Canadian consular officials can provide a list of local lawyers upon request.

<snip>

Canadians with Iranian nationality should be aware that unlike Canada, Iran does not recognize dual nationality. Dual nationals have to enter Iran using their Iranian passports. The Canadian Embassy’s ability to assist dual nationals is very limited. Naturalized Canadians who are Iranian by birth should be aware that the Iranian authorities could take an interest in them for reasons related to politics, security, property, or professional background. The following problems have occurred:

<snip>

Photography of government and military installations, such as ports and airports and their surroundings, is strictly prohibited. Such sites are not always identifiable. Refrain from taking pictures whenever you are not at a recognized tourist site. When in doubt, ask for information.

<snip>

Last Updated:
2003-12-17

Any bolding is mine.

Now Ms. Kazemi was killed in June of 2003. I can’t find an advisory prior to December 2003 but I doubt it was vastly different.

Since we recognize that they do not recognize our citizen’s claims to Canadian citizenship it is ultimately an international bureaucratic issue. An issue that has far reaching implications. It is not an excuse to sign on to a war.

[Sam_Stone]

I don’t care whether they recognize her claim or not. She is a Canadian citizen, and Canada has a responsibility to look after her rights and seek justice for her family. And BTW, the killing was against the laws of Iran, and there is a trial, but representatives of Canada were not allowed in to the trial, and last I heard, the trial was mysteriously called off. This means the Iranian thugocracy violated its own laws.

[Grey]

Oh well then, to war! :rolleyes:

Sam, I’m not defending the Iranians here. What I am pointing out is that they, and this is important, don’t recognize Canada’s right to defend a person they consider their citizen..

Do I think the Iranian state is filled authoritarian, religious thugs and zealots?

Yep.

Do I think they’re paranoid enough to beat a journalist for taking pictures?

Yep.

Do I think Canada should do everything in it power to seek justice?

Yep.

Do I think the lack of a formal dual citizenship agreement contributed to Ms. Kazemi’s fate?

Yep.

Do I think the Iranians will actually perform a transparent and accountable judicial inquiry into Ms. Kazemi’s death at the hands of the Iranian Secret police?

Nope.

Do I think we should go to war over it?

Nope.

[Squink]

Returning to the subject of our next war:

The Senate is expected to take up a resolution calling for sanctions against Iran when it returns in September. But beyond that, some Senate Republicans plan to push for legislation on Iran modeled after the Iraq Liberation Act that would similarly call for regime change and financial support for resistance forces.

Anti-Iran sentiment hardening fast
Critics in Congress finger Iranian ties to Al Qaeda and influence in Iraq as cause for a tougher approach.

[PatriotX]

If a country actually were looking for a fresher rationale for an invasion it could defend its ally.

Iraq issues threat to Iran over insurgents
*By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
(Filed: 21/07/2004) *
Iraq threatened military retaliation against Iran yesterday, accusing its former foe of backing terrorists who have begun to focus their campaign of violence on the interim government itself.

[Squink]

@SimonX

If a country actually were looking for a fresher rationale for an invasion it could defend its ally.

Keep your eyes peeled for a mutual defense pact with the government of sovereign Iraq.

[World_Eater]

@Squink

Keep your eyes peeled for a mutual defense pact with the government of sovereign Iraq.

Sadly, I’ll wager they’re drawing one up as we speak.

[Sam_Stone]

Why “Sadly”? If Iran is attempting to destroy a sovereign neighbor, shouldn’t that neighbor be willing to ask for protection from the U.S.?

Frankly, I hope such a formal pact happens, and happens soon. For the good of Iraq, and to hopefully force Iran to consider the ramifications of its continued aggression. Nothing like having the 3rd infantry start lining up on your border to make you re-think your destabilization policy.

[Squink]

@Sam Stone

If Iran is attempting to destroy a sovereign neighbor, shouldn’t that neighbor be willing to ask for protection from the U.S.?

The key word in that sentence is if. What with the insurgency and all, the quality of reporting out of Iraq stinks to high heaven. Unless it’s nuclear missiles found in the desert or something easily verifiable, the administration is pretty much free to make up any damned thing that it pleases. That includes shadowy Iranian insurgent groups, and pretexts for another war.