TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Thread about a possible War on Iran
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »

They're "contingency" as long as they're not used. It's purely a matter of perspective. You can site as much military movement and posturing as you'd like, but until the first shots are fired, it is a contingency plan. There are two things that are much different now than before Iraq that I believe make a Iran attack very improbable.

1. There has been no 9/11 type event that polarized the nation, even world to some extent, as far as "going after terrorists."

2. The public is already sick of the war in Iraq and it's going to take a whole bunch more proof than a few vague satellite images (ala pre-Iraq) to persuade the country and its politicians into giving any kind of go ahead for the operation. Sure, Bush can be a cowboy and jump in there by himself, but the public outcry would be enormous. I can't even imagine the political and public upheaval that would occur if he went in there guns blazing with no overwhelming and unquestionable reasons to.

So, for now it is a contingency plan, stating otherwise is pure speculation. When and if something happens will be the only time that changes. And like I said the probability of anything happening, with the current political and public climate, is very slim unless something drastic occurs.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX What a great post full of pointless rhetoric. Who cares what kind of plans they are.

Apparently not yourself. However others that have seen similar patterns of this Adminstration's foreign policies and stances tend to have a bit more uneasiness when examining such actions.

quote:

It would be irresponsible for the Bush administration to not have a variety of plans for military intervention in Iran going all the way from limited airstrikes to a full scale invasion.

Why? Explain. Considering by our own intelligence analysts that Iranian nuclear development is about 10 years away, why have such an incredible massive build-up towards Iran? What specifically garners such a threat posed by Iran right now that requires so much attention militarily?

quote:

Lets say they only make plans to strike a few targets in Iran, and they only have one carrier battle group in the area. To retaliate for the airstrikes Iran then invades Iraq and attacks the US military there, plus Iranian agents begin committing terrorist attacks in the USA and Western Europe.

So I take it by these statements you are admitting the premise that we would initially strike Iran strategically? Didn't you just say earlier:

quote:

Who cares what kind of plans they are.

Mmkay.

quote:

If the Bush administration did not have a plan drawn up to invade and remove the Iranian government already it would take weeks of planning to create one, and they would look like complete idiots for not doing their jobs properly.

Uhh, weeks? According to the story I posted earlier (and provided that the claims are true), we are not talking weeks - we're talking 4 years of planning. That's a wee bit different, sir. But even if they're trying to "cover their bases", so to speak, and make sure they have a viable post-war plan in contrast to their debacle in Iraq, I believe they'd have a great deal more problems to deal with (hypothetically speaking) than merely having a viable rebuilding of infrastructure plan. It might have something to do with, oh I dunno, maybe the entire world including our own country being firmly against another fucking invasion?

Kinda strange thinkin' I guess, but since we're both discussing hypotheticals, I think it's fair to throw that one out there too.

quote:

At a minimum many senior administration officials would be removed from their positions for gross imcompetence.

With the same light-speed response as removing Rummy, I'm sure

quote:

Again, I fail to see how this is news or even important. Just because there are attack plans does not mean they will be carried out. It makes complete logical sense that these plans would be drawn up well before they would be needed, if they would ever be needed.

Well let me get a bit more to the point - the plans by themselves may raise an eyebrow, but that's it. But one has to ask himself why these plans are being drawn up, and you already somewhat alluded to it with your hypothetical - strategic attacks. Now you couple these plans with the ever increasing political rhetoric and sabre rattling by Bush with Iran, and both of my eyebrows are being raised.

History is apparently repeating itself rather blatantly, and I tend to share the vast majority of sane-minded, reality-based opinion with the rest of the world and majority American public that I really want to keep this Administration's Executive powers in check. I would like to see VERIFIABLE evidence of Iran pointing nukes at our heads, Iran having WMDs, Iran having connections to al Qaeda and planning attacks on America, all the same bullshit rhetoric that was not fully substantiated prior to us invading Iraq. I see all the Neocon rhetoric in the same flavor as was there about invading Iraq towards Iran. Hell, the same ultra-influential American Enterprise Institute that has advocated and whispered sweet nothings into Bush's ear over the years, to which he's enacted on those whisperings, saying things like these:

quote:

. �Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran�s nuclear facilities before leaving office,� AEI Resident Scholar Joshua Muravchik http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/...reignpolicy.com

Or a top Cheney aide say this:

quote:

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney�s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 �the year of Iran� and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7021001275.html

Hannah, BTW, was one of our wonderful sources on that lovely pre-war intelligence in Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660169/

Grover Norquist (I'm hoping most know how influential he is):

quote:

�Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn�t happened,� says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. �And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president�s neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, �Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.� But after you�ve lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?� http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...currentPage=all

Or former CIA officer Philip Giraldi:

quote:

�I�ve heard from sources at the Pentagon that their impression is that the White House has made a decision that war is going to happen." http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...currentPage=all

Or when the White House originally wanted the 2002 Iraq War Resolution to cover the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, not just Iraq alone, but was stripped by Senators including the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:

quote:

HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region. GQ: It wasn�t specific to Iraq? HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions. GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East? HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it. http://men.style.com/gq/features/fu..._5326&pageNum=3

In fact, it can be noted how the Bush Administration has DELIBERATELY undermined any diplomatic possibilities with Iran as far back as 2002. Let's keep in mind that Iran had originally offered a great deal of transparency with a deal back in 2003, to which Condi Rice seemingly had that darn selective memory thingy going again. In essence it offered the following:

quote:

If accepted, it would have meant the Iranians would have put on the table ending its support for Palestinian terrorist groups; "action" on transforming Hezbollah into a "mere political organization within Lebanon"; "transparency" that Iran isn't trying to develop WMD; and "enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran." In return, the U.S. would ultimately lift all sanctions on Iran; ensure "full access" to nuclear technology (!); and provide, in general, a "halt in hostile U.S. behavior," to include action against "anti-Iranian" terrorist groups. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002528.php

Of course as the author of that article states, that doesn't mean we should accept those terms at face value. Nevertheless it did open the door to a diplomatic possibility for us to see if there could be anything worthwhile established between us and the Iranians. That possibility was worth at the very least finding out, IMO, but what did the Administration do instead?

Axis of Evil.

Fuck off Iran.

Or how about Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation write about Bush's utter asinine Iranian policy, which was cleared by the CIA but was blocked by Bush:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php

Note the following:

quote:

These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003. There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain.

Terrific censorship of that which was already publicly documented.

So please spare me the tripe reply of "pointless rhetoric" when I document such things. The military actions COMBINED with the obvious rhetoric and political actions taken by this Administration toward Iran are worth more than enough concern. I kinda have this thing against invading another fucking country, considering this Adminstration's wonderful invasion record so far, so you must excuse my "pointless rhetoric" when I tend to see trends on what this Administration has done in the past when they combine their rhetoric with action.

today is the last day and looks like UN isn't backing down.
what do you guys think will happen? India is already imposing sanctions on trade with Iran. this could get ugly! i honestly hope so, first step to global democracy is eradication of religious fanatics

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono They're "contingency" as long as they're not used. It's purely a matter of perspective. You can site as much military movement and posturing as you'd like, but until the first shots are fired, it is a contingency plan. There are two things that are much different now than before Iraq that I believe make a Iran attack very improbable. 1. There has been no 9/11 type event that polarized the nation, even world to some extent, as far as "going after terrorists." 2. The public is already sick of the war in Iraq and it's going to take a whole bunch more proof than a few vague satellite images (ala pre-Iraq) to persuade the country and its politicians into giving any kind of go ahead for the operation. Sure, Bush can be a cowboy and jump in there by himself, but the public outcry would be enormous. I can't even imagine the political and public upheaval that would occur if he went in there guns blazing with no overwhelming and unquestionable reasons to. So, for now it is a contingency plan, stating otherwise is pure speculation. When and if something happens will be the only time that changes. And like I said the probability of anything happening, with the current political and public climate, is very slim unless something drastic occurs.

Honestly I hope you're correct, and I concede the point of this still being "contingency" plans. They are still very much that, but again, as I pointed out above, combined with the obvious rhetoric coming from this Administration, history has clearly shown when such rhetoric combined with military movement there tends to be more than just mere posturing and sabre rattling. I hope that's all there is, but I think given this Administration's stance and the rhetoric coming from those influential advisors whispering in his ear, along with the military buildup, I think I and anyone else has every reason to be concerned with this Administration's possible next move.

Some more additional rhetoric by this President from last August. You tell me if you see any similiar trends:

quote:

This summer's crisis in Lebanon has made it clearer than ever that the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran. . . . The Iranian regime denies basic human rights to millions of its people. And the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons in open defiance of its international obligations. We know the death and suffering that Iran's sponsorship of terrorists has brought, and we can imagine how much worse it would be if Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Many nations are working together to solve this problem. The United Nations passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. Today is the deadline for Iran's leaders to reply to the reasonable proposal the international community has made. If Iran's leaders accept this offer and abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions, they can set their country on a better course. Yet, so far, the Iranian regime has responded with further defiance and delay. It is time for Iran to make a choice. We've made our choice: We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution -- but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20060831-1.html

This is almost freakin' verbatum to the shit he said months prior to invading Iraq.

Again, I hope you're right, but seeing these similiar trends should give everyone a bit of pause on what's ticking inside Bush's brain lately.

@MisterOpus1

I hope that we're both right and nothing will happen. I'm hoping that the inevitable shit storm that would rain on Bush if he did decide to go into Iran unprovoked and unsubstantiated would stop him from doing so. After 9/11 he rode public support into Iraq, but that support is long gone. The scary thing for me is not a war with Iran, it's what would happen to the government/civility back here in the States if war did occur. I don't consider myself an alarmist, but there would be some rough days for the US and the rest of the world if another US lead war broke out. I just hope Bush is smart enough to realize that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 history has clearly shown when such rhetoric combined with military movement there tends to be more than just mere posturing and sabre rattling.

example? the only time that comes to my mind Lybia 1986.

quote:

I think I and anyone else has every reason to be concerned with this Administration's possible next move.

thats the idea

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Apparently not yourself. However others that have seen similar patterns of this Adminstration's foreign policies and stances tend to have a bit more uneasiness when examining such actions.

While true, I would tend to believe that they certainly wouldn't broadcast their military movements to the MSM if they had any intent of following up on said plans either...

It's a political statement if anything because militarily it certainly doesn't make sense...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo example? the only time that comes to my mind Lybia 1986.

Uhhh, uhhh, ummm, hmmmm.....wait...no....damn....

Oh, oh, uhh, Iraq?

quote:

thats the idea

If that's all the idea, and again if it's mere posturing and pressuring, well they certainly sold me. Hopefully at this stage I do hope that's all it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r While true, I would tend to believe that they certainly wouldn't broadcast their military movements to the MSM if they had any intent of following up on said plans either... It's a political statement if anything because militarily it certainly doesn't make sense...

Well like I said with Neo, I hope you're right.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Iraq?

wrong. you seem to forget the steps we took at the UN to try and engender a concensus for the sole purpose of military action against Iraq. prior to that was years of failed policy and limited scope military action.

none of that has happened with regard to Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wrong. you seem to forget the steps we took at the UN to try and engender a concensus for the sole purpose of military action against Iraq. prior to that was years of failed policy and limited scope military action. none of that has happened with regard to Iran.

Point taken.

So I guess we should wait for Bush to "try" to get the U.N. involved in more than just the sanctions already posed (which BTW, I completely agree with those sanctions), get U.N. inspectors involved, and then kick those inspectors out just prior to dropping the first bunker-busting nuke, right?

Or perhaps that same avenue is not being travelled, which I must concede. Whichever the case, I'll scale back my initial fears and wait a bit longer for this to unfold.

I think an invasion of Iran is now much less likely than it was prior to the invasion of Iraq. With 9/11 fresh in our minds, Bush had a large amount of blind support for the invasion of Iraq. The actual invasion militarily was a great success, however the Bush administration mishandled and miscalculated what would be required for the rebuilding period in post-Saddam Iraq. Plus the clear failures of intelligence on Iraq's WMD program have damaged the ability of the administration to use that type of evidence to justify an invasion of Iran. In the end I believe the Middle East will be better off without Saddam, the last thing that part of the world needs is another destabilizing force.

However, because of the way things have gone in Iraq, the Bush administration will need to have irrefutable proof that Iran is:

1. Attempting to produce nuclear weapons covertly

or

2. Is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents or directly involved in attacks against US soldiers in Iraq

Without solid proof of these actions by Iran I do not believe that Bush would domestically have the support to invade Iran. By going the UN route, if Iran refuses to play ball with UN inspectors I think most people in the US would support limited strikes against specific targets in Iran which are involved with the production of nuclear weapons or material. But the odds of an actual ground invasion taking place at this point I think are very slim.

Breaking News:
U.N. says Iran has passed deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

there's not going to be a war, but there is going to be lots of bombs dropped

Yeah probably these:

EGBU-28

I dunno if that can reach all of Iran's underground stuff, but with the bombs being as accurate as they are I would think you could basically drop them one on top of the other into the craters and eventually reach the bunkers.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey there's not going to be a war, but there is going to be lots of bombs dropped

lets bomb them now even tho they are at least 10 years away from getting even close to making a nuclear bomb.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer lets bomb them now even tho they are at least 10 years away from getting even close to making a nuclear bomb.

Its called a pre-emptive strike. First off nobody knows for sure how far they are from making a bomb. And I'd much rather destroy all their research and equipment when they are 10 years away rather than let them get within 1 or 2 years when it would be much easier for them to get started again.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Its called a pre-emptive strike. First off nobody knows for sure how far they are from making a bomb. And I'd much rather destroy all their research and equipment when they are 10 years away rather than let them get within 1 or 2 years when it would be much easier for them to get started again.

so you wanna destroy their research and equipments that are there to help them make nuclear reactors for energy purposes? because there are no proof anywhere whatsoever that they are making a nuclear bombs.

So please dont fall for this bullshit propagenda that Bush is trying to feed you.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore prancer so you don't wanna destroy their research and equipments that are there to help them make dirty bombs for radical purposes? because there are no proof anywhere whatsoever that they are not making a nuclear bombs. So please dont fall for this bullshit propagenda that Iran is trying to feed you.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer so you wanna destroy their research and equipments that are there to help them make nuclear reactors for energy purposes? because there are no proof anywhere whatsoever that they are making a nuclear bombs. So please dont fall for this bullshit propagenda that Bush is trying to feed you.

What's the proof that they're only using it for energy purposes? If that's the case, why won't they allow UN inspectors to take a look?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer so you wanna destroy their research and equipments that are there to help them make nuclear reactors for energy purposes? because there are no proof anywhere whatsoever that they are making a nuclear bombs. So please dont fall for this bullshit propagenda that Bush is trying to feed you.

Bush?
Dood, what about the U.N. and rest of the world? Are we chopped liver?
Get your head outta da Bush for a moment plz...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What's the proof that they're only using it for energy purposes? If that's the case, why won't they allow UN inspectors to take a look?

LOL , Saddam didn't allow them in eigther for quite a while. He sure was a big threat now wasn't he? Sitting locket and loaded with all sorts of DubyaMDs in his little underground basement. Shhh... be vewy vewy quiet, I'm looking for WMDs, err... well, I found a siwwy little CIA asset... Saddam huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu!

A picture the NeoCon Administration was so deperately trying to paint to justify their War in the public mind, and succeded in having the myth sink in:


But this is what really happened:


Huhuhuhuh... Siwy Amewican People!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What's the proof that they're only using it for energy purposes? If that's the case, why won't they allow UN inspectors to take a look?

They have always allowd them to take a look,but everytime they do,they just seem never happy.Why isnt Israel allowing UN inspectors into their nuclear facilites?are they hiding something?


How do I know they are using nuclear technology for energy purposes?very simple,the population is growing and so is the need for more energy and currently what they have is simply not enough for todays needs.
Now would I be surprised if they do make nuclear bombs?absolutely not why?just take a look at whats happening around them,I can almost say every single of their neighbor is distabilized or occupied by the American forces,and since they know that Bush will attack anything or anyone that doesnt agree with him,and since diplomacy doesnt fit into his tiny head,it makes sense for them to have nukes to prevent them from getting attacked or occupied.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Bush? Dood, what about the U.N. and rest of the world? Get your head outta da Bush for a moment plz...

Isnt this the same U.N that told Bush not to attack Iraq?isnt this the same U.N that showd proof to the world that there are not WMDS in Iraq?and yet the U.S decided to go ahead with the invasion.

Why should Iran have to listen to them then?if the most powerful nation ignors U.N all the time why should others take them seriously?

It is not me that has to take my head out here you ass clown.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer lets bomb them now even tho they are at least 10 years away from getting even close to making a nuclear bomb.

I don't understand why people say this. How long did it take the US to develop the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It wasn't 10 years.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.