TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Would you support going to war with Iran?
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Would you support going to war with Iran?

I ask because of the following claims by an internet blogger (not the most reliable source I know, but we will be able to see in the next two weeks whether his claims are true or not):

quote:

Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way: They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/po...t-war-with.html

Now I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but I could sympathise with the British justifications for going in. I thought it was completely the wrong time, Afghanistan should have been a priority, Saddam posed no threat to the UK and it would be seen as being part of America's war on terror. I did, however, fundamentally disagree with America's justifications for going to war with Iraq.

But I am becoming more and more scared that the US is planning military action against Iran. The scary part is it seems such a stupid proposition to even contemplate going to war with Iran - but that is exactly what the most powerful country in the world is doing. Such power and such stupidity scares the shit out of me.

No way should America (or anyone else that gets dragged along with them) go to war with Iran. It would be a complete and utter disaster. More so than Iraq IMO

No..... simply put No. Not with this admin behind the wheel...anything that el busho states from here on out about his 'Idealogical War' should be taken with a grain of salt.... Plus allow Iran to make the first move. Allow them to continue to defy the UN.....
then and only then should we strike. and for once, allow some other country to take the lead, like the UK or France.. now that France is finally growing a pair

I'm gonna go with no. If the US decided to go to war with Iran, to be successful they would need to attack in full force and use some of their higher caliber bombs and whatnot. Using high grade weapons though would do nothing but further damage their relationship with everyone around the world. So they would probably either cut back on the amount of force used, which would lead to utter military failure, or go full Monty and risk a diplomatic mess. It's a lose-lose situation.

No U.N. sanctioned strike option?
Boourns...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r No U.N. sanctioned strike option? Boourns...

If the UN told you to jump off a cliff would you?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If the UN told you to jump off a cliff would you?!

why would he? he would of died from old age before they arrived at that resolution

No, but make it abundantly clear that you'll leave all options on the table.

...then hope like hell Billary takes Iran half as seriously.

Having an UN sanction makes it more palatable for many other nations though.

Invading Iran now would be the craziest thing Bush can do. Afghanistan plus Iraq and now Iran? Where would the troops come from?

Def voting no on this issue.To be honest I have been reading alot of articles similar to what George has posted going even back to 2005 and non of it has come true.Iam sure behind the curtin they are def planning their options against Iran.

It seems like once again this admin is underestimating another country just like how they thought Iraq was going to be a easy one.I sure hope they are doing their homework on Iran because Iran will will not be easy to defeat at all.They will be facing an actual army plus the guerilla style battles and we all know that the Americans are simply not good at that.

Bottom line,the U.S curently would not win a war with a country like Iran,simply because their military is over streched unless they have a draft which I highly doubt it ll work.So their last option would to use Israel to do the job for them and if thats the case say goodbye to Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If the UN told you to jump off a cliff would you?!

But wasn't that one of the biggest points of contention with the States going in Iraq...non-U.N. approval?

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag why would he? he would of died from old age before they arrived at that resolution

LOL! Sad but true...

I actually chose the 4th option - to CONSIDER using airstrikes, but not attacking. Iran needs to feel like it cant just do anything it wants. It has to abide by its obligations and international laws. I am a bit alarmed at their nuclear weapons aspirations. I doubt that they are doing it for fuel - they have enough gas and oil to last a long long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I actually chose the 4th option - to CONSIDER using airstrikes, but not attacking. Iran needs to feel like it cant just do anything it wants. It has to abide by its obligations and international laws. I am a bit alarmed at their nuclear weapons aspirations. I doubt that they are doing it for fuel - they have enough gas and oil to last a long long time.

That's what I don't get either Mag.
They already have enough energy that they're exporting it so why do they suddenly need nuclear?
They can't use the, 'It's cleaner' rouse while looking out their windows at oil factories and refineries.
And it's not like they're lacking any sunlight so why not solar panels or some other alternative energy?
All they want is a political bargaining chip.

It wouldn't be so bad if they were so damn ornery.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's what I don't get either Mag. They already have enough energy that they're exporting it so why do they suddenly need nuclear? They can't use the, 'It's cleaner' rouse while looking out their windows at oil factories and refineries. And it's not like they're lacking any sunlight so why not solar panels or some other alternative energy? All they want is a political bargaining chip. It wouldn't be so bad if they were so damn ornery.

Well, Iran actually imports half their energy from other countries. This is because their refining capacity is far outstripped by their consumption of fuel. Think about $0.25 per gallon subsidies and subsidized energy. This is one of the reasons the Iranian regime raised the gasoline price and also instituted a gas ration system sparking riots a couple months ago. They havn't built refineries for a long time.

No doubt Iran needs some way to fully satisfy its own energy needs, but they're going about this need for nuclear energy horribly. If they wanted nuclear energy, then they allow full and open inspections of their nuclear facilities to 3rd party international organizations (IAEA, UN, etc.). Instead, Iran hides its capacity inside underground bunkers and top secret military facilities. On top of that, who is in charge of the operation. The Revolutionary Guard, that's who. If Iran wasn't being shady with their stash, the world consensus might not have been so anti-nuclear Iran.

I can't wait until the heavily subsidized socialist with heavily controlled private enterprise economic structure of Iran collapses, hopefully pissing the people off thus starting a democratic counter-revolution!! The US should keep its hands off.

Great point I forgot to add, yes indeed, Iran is being very shady and with its conflicts with inspectors, hiding stuff, being evasive, etc. well, who knows ... we should pressure Iran to let it know that it cant have it all including nuclear weapons, but at the same time we need to respect its sovereignity and perhaps co-operate with Iran better. I seriously think the reason for Iran wanting to develop nuclear weapons is that USA is threatening its regime. With nukes, it will ne able to hold a deterrent to safekeep itself. Until then, I really believe in existence of US-led plans to knock out those plants and nuclear program locations. USA simply doesnt want a strong independent [from Western meddling] Islamic state in Middle East. Iran, obviously, wants to be an independent and strong player in the region. I think Iran is playing its game at the right time, when US military and budget are overstretched and support at home is low. At the same time, Iran is being cautious, and acting weird by not paying up to the Russians on time for the Busher plant. So only God really knows what the Iranians are up to ...

The only ones it appears the Iranians do have niceties with is Syria but only because of their common foe in Israel.

To be fair to Iran, when Bush named it as in an 'Axis of Evil' along with Iraq, what did you expect them to do when they saw what happened to Iraq?!

Lets face facts, Iraq and Iran are a possible threat to Israel only. But for neocons, there is no difference between Israeli foreign policy and American foreign policy. They are incapable of seperating the two. So any threats to Israel get automatically translated into threats against America, under the guise of "threats to democracy/our way of life". Iraq and Iran, WMDs or no WMDs, never posed any threat to America or the West other than possibly Israel, and even then, it is very very unlikely that either would mount WMD attacks against Israel unless provoked into doing so as to do so would signal the end of either regime

Basically, I wouldn't consider a nuclear Iran a threat to either America or the EU, or even Israel.

We are told time and time again Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorists, but this only effects America in Iraq and lets face it, that's all America's doing. They sponsor Hizballah, but that has no effect on America, Hizballah are localised terrorists, not international (now anyway)

I think a hell of a lot of bullshit is being said and predicted about Iran and unfortunately there are enough stupid gullible people out there to believe it all...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I can't wait until the heavily subsidized socialist with heavily controlled private enterprise economic structure collapses, hopefully pissing the people off thus starting a democratic counter-revolution!!

We could use one of those in America

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Basically, I wouldn't consider a nuclear Iran a threat to either America or the EU, or even Israel.

You know Ahmadinejad (yes I had to search to spell his name) has repeatedly called for the complete destruction of Israel right? This guy is the real deal...a full-on ultrareligious Islamofascist wacko. If he gets a nuke, I don't think he would hesitate to press the button. He would consider it a "contribution" to the world, and a guaranteed path to heaven.

We need UN inspections in Iran like we had in Iraq X 50. Comb the country top to bottom and make sure his program is dismantled. We don't need to invade. As others have said, guerrilla warfare is a guaranteed failure for the US army. It is pointless and will go on forever. We should just send a few dozen UN teams to the country, and bomb any location he refuses to allow inspectors into. That's what we SHOULD have done with Iraq actually..

Iran's nuclear sites are buried deep underground in concrete bunkers, I don't think they can be taken out by airstrikes (same with North Korea)

Oh yea and what someone says and what they do are not always the same. Don't confuse pandering to public support to actual designs. And don't confuse religious fundamentalism with stupidity (eg the American regime is just as fundamentally religious as any in the world). If Iran attacks Israel the regime ends, just like Saddam. And don't think Ahmadinejad is as willing to commit suicide (literally as well as politically) because how often do the leaders of suicide terrorist groups actually blow themselves up? Never

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Iran's nuclear sites are buried deep underground in concrete bunkers, I don't think they can be taken out by airstrikes (same with North Korea) Oh yea and what someone says and what they do are not always the same. Don't confuse pandering to public support to actual designs. And don't confuse religious fundamentalism with stupidity (eg the American regime is just as fundamentally religious as any in the world). If Iran attacks Israel the regime ends, just like Saddam. And don't think Ahmadinejad is as willing to commit suicide (literally as well as politically) because how often do the leaders of suicide terrorist groups actually blow themselves up? Never

As I said, I dont think Iran is developing nukes to attack, thats suicidal. I think they're doing it to create a deterrent, so that USA will not be able to attack it then. Because otherwise they dont really need nuclear power plants - face it, Iran is mostly in earthquake zones and they cant build nuclear power plants in many parts of the country without some major risks. Common sense says it all.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Iran's nuclear sites are buried deep underground in concrete bunkers, I don't think they can be taken out by airstrikes (same with North Korea)

Two words; bunker busters

The US would totally destroy Iran........ a fact.... should we?/ NO! but if it occurs, then Iran is pretty much focked.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r No U.N. sanctioned strike option? Boourns...

why the fuc* would UN strike Iran? They have no reason to do it.. just because US 'thinks' Iran will invade US? UN dosent give a fuc* what US thinks.. UN dosent take pre-emptive strike.. if that was the case they would have strike US long time back before US invaded Iraq even when UN said Iraq got no WMDs nor did it plan to have it.. Got it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Two words; bunker busters

LOL!!

People need to watch Weaponology on the Military channel. Then they'de see the US has thought long and hard about how to crush any enemy on the battlefield. The cowards in Iraq have to use IEDs to make any effect against the US military. When they do show their ugly heads, they get blown apart.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple why the fuc* would UN strike Iran? They have no reason to do it.. just because US 'thinks' Iran will invade US? UN dosent give a fuc* what US thinks.. UN dosent take pre-emptive strike.. if that was the case they would have strike US long time back before US invaded Iraq even when UN said Iraq got no WMDs nor did it plan to have it.. Got it?

I don't think the UN carries out military campaigns...

UN should strike US and prevent it from invading other oil rich countries.

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