TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iran is next
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Many people assume that the US is simply going into the region and will remove ALL hostile regimes and all weapons of mass destruction from the region. That is not the case and I'll tell you why Iraq is an isolated case. First off, we are not starting a war in Iraq. The war was started in the 90's when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Currentely there is a truce in place ... not a peace treaty! This truce is based on the Iraqi agreement to UNCONDITIONALLY disarm the country from all weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspections. Since then, Iraq has booted UN inspectors from the country (1998), has not given FULL cooperation that satisfies current weapons inspectors, and has refused to destroy contraband missiles in its possession. Therefore since the terms of the truce has been violated, the United States is not obligated to uphold its end of the bargain. People keep saying more time is needed ... this debate has been going on for almost a decade! How many resolutions and waves of inspectors have gone through that country in an attempt to allow Saddam the chance to prove to the world that he is in full compliance?
At any rate I'm straying from my point ... Iran will not come under US threat simply because Iran is not BOUND by any treaty or truce to relinquish anything. Why do you think the US is not doing more when they announced they were acquiring a nuclear reactor? Because we can't! The same goes with N. Korea. The reason why we are using diplomacy and not force in N. Korea is because the truce at the end of the Korean war stipulated that they only respect the DMZ seperating the two countries. They are not bound to abide by the nuclear non proliferation treaty nor are they restricted from any kind of military buildup or chemical weapons. So for the people that think that we're going to invade Iran after Iraq ... we simply won't. Iran could simply go to the UN and rightfully declare the US as being an aggressor state. There are rules to world politics as Iraq discovered in 1991.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King I even think that this war on Iraq is a way of creating a war against Iran.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek I have the same feeling and Syria is the next in line... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa You may (or may not) be right in that the U.S. will not invade Iran because Iran isn't under truce like Iraq. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. Spec-Ops will not go to Iran. - The U.S. allegations that Saddam's WMD may be transferred to unspecified countries are an excellent pretext to bully Iran. So the American Spec-Ops will be let operating inside Iran "to search for Saddam's unaccounted WMD, and to chase escaping Baathists who have fled to Sunni-sympathetic areas of Iran". - There are currently Iranian-trained Shiite guerillas in Iraq near the Iranian border as an early-warning system against U.S. military activity. If/when the U.S. troops will attack them, the surviving guerillas will retreat to Iran. The U.S. can bully Iran to let their Spec-Ops chase for Iraqi guerillas inside Iran. Also the following news story (supporting my fears of the U.S. attacking/bullying Iran) just appeared: Army Chief: Huge Force Would Occupy Iraq http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...d=542&ncid=1480 There are several possible explanations for a huge American military presence in Iraq, but the most probable is that the military will be used to bully/attack Iran. After all, a much smaller occupation force would be better for the U.S., because keeping the troops there costs immensely, and Arab terrorists can target huge American troops more easily. So the logical conclusion is that the huge troops will be in Iraq for strategical, not tactical reasons (strategical means here that the U.S. will be a major player feared in all Middle-East) |
finally some intelligent comments. thank you Vesa!
| quote: |
My own guess is that it's just a co-incidence that Al-Qaidas are prominent around the oil countries. Well may be no co-incidence in the last analysis, but still a co-incidence for our practical purposes. |
| quote: |
| There are some allegations of an American conservative-Jewish plot to get control of Middle-East |
| quote: |
One more proof of American aspirations in Northern Africa were the recent U.S. "friendship" program with Arab countries. The American military doctrine is to befriend the locals when they want CIA and their Spec-Ops to operate inside the country. |
It's pointless to jump to conclusions so soon ... only time will tell. My prediction however ... the same approach that is being taken with N. Korea will be taken with Iran.
I think US infact might go after Iran when they're done with Iraq (unless of course, Bush suddenly gets smarter and sees that what he's doing isn't the best course of action). There are two reasons why this situation should be considered different than the one with NK. First one is that Iran is actively supporting islamic terrorists. Second one is that Iran has a much weaker army than the NK.
- Ironic how once the US gave Iraq ( back in the 80's ) chemical weapns,beoligical and big time weapons to Iraq in order to use them against Iran ( which is what the US wanted, and knew that Saddam would do it ).. and now, US is after both of them .. hehehehe.
I think the american politicians will do whatever will bring them the most power.
I'm sure many of them want to go after Iran after we take over Iraq and thus take over oil interests over there. And I won't be surprised that after the war with Iraq there will be alot of talk about Iran and Bush and his posse will look for reasons to attack Iraq.
I don't think it will happen though.
Not because the politicians have some compassion left in them, but because they will realize that a war with Iran will be very costly in both money and american lives.
And when amricans die in a war (especially one which will have the support of just a little over half the nation, if not less), more and more of the population will start to oppose the war.
America is attacking Iraq because it thinks it can crush it easily.
Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan are all countries who pose a much more dangerous threat to us than Iraq. (hell the prez of N. Korea, Kim Jong II, is much more "evil" than saddam).
War with any of these three countries would be devistating though, US casualties would be incredibly high.
And thus our leaders aren't opting for war with them.
and god i hope that they don't decide to go after them in the future.
The american government is slowly using Irans nuclear energy program as a "threat"....
I see the same pathetic attempts to point the finger at the "evil enemies" in the middeast.
The American government makes me sick.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King The american government is slowly using Irans nuclear energy program as a "threat".... I see the same pathetic attempts to point the finger at the "evil enemies" in the middeast. The American government makes me sick. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Cyrus ... nothing has even HAPPENED yet to arrive at the conclusion that the US will do anything militarily with Iran. Don't you think you're being a tad bit extremist??? I personally resent the remark that you're in disgust with my government about this when there is no THIS. People so far have been merely quoting CNN and using that as a basis in determining what the US foreign policy is before that policy is even established much less made clear to the public!!! If this isn't an example of prejudiced preconceptions I don't know what is. It's not like I go around saying that Arafat will reject ANY peace treaty Israel proposes because everything has failed in the past. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Cyrus ... nothing has even HAPPENED yet to arrive at the conclusion that the US will do anything militarily with Iran. Don't you think you're being a tad bit extremist??? I personally resent the remark that you're in disgust with my government about this when there is no THIS. People so far have been merely quoting CNN and using that as a basis in determining what the US foreign policy is before that policy is even established much less made clear to the public!!! If this isn't an example of prejudiced preconceptions I don't know what is. It's not like I go around saying that Arafat will reject ANY peace treaty Israel proposes because everything has failed in the past. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King "Iran now openly says it is pursuing a complete nuclear fuel cycle. We completely reject Iran's claim that it is doing so for peaceful purposes," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...lear/index.html |
| quote: |
| PROVE to me that the US will attack Iran with miliatary force |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Romp How can you prove something which will occur in the future |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider My point exactly. People are taking CNN reports about Iran's nuclear reactor and are jumping to the conclusion that the US is obviously going to invade ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by bouzo well yeah i guess its not fair since the U.S is such a peacful just country ...like come on it really doesnt invade except if it really HAS to invade due to "NATIONAL SECURITY" reasons...nothing to do with oil bleeh who gives a fuck about the oil anywayz like as if afghanistan has oil or iraq has oil ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King The US will definately try something.... its just the way they are.. And Iran is using it for energy purposes... even allowing inspectors to watch them in the process.... |
Iran is next for sure. But it won't happen the same way as Iraq (military conflict). In Iran the youngsters are more in favor to the western ideals than the elders in power in that country.
It might come in a form of a coup or pressure with lots of popular support.
Syria is another question, it might involve military action.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek Iran is next for sure. But it won't happen the same way as Iraq (military conflict). In Iran the youngsters are more in favor to the western ideals than the elders in power in that country. It might come in a form of a coup or pressure with lots of popular support. Syria is another question, it might involve military action. |
Funny tho that the format of the govt in Iran was supported by the US against the Shaa...
Well the US seems to be on a blitz to corrects its old errors (read sarcasm)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek Funny tho that the format of the govt in Iran was supported in Iran against the Shaa... Well the US seems to be on a blitz to corrects its old errors (read sarcasm) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Afghanistan doesn't have oil |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Wurm Not under the ground, but soon to be flowing over the ground in pipes. Mustn't let those Iranians get their hands on Black Sea oil. |
Jeez, can't they wrap things up in Afghanistan and Iraq first?!?! Seriously, all Bush is doing is disrupting the Mideast and is not putting the countries back together after going in. It is obvious he has never heard of post-war reconstruction before in his life.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.