TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Will the US Invade/Strike Iran

Will the US Invade/Strike Iran

Do you think the US will Invade or Strike Iran?

I think US will invade Iran and they wont be in any position to invade anyone else in future.

There should be a "I don't know" choice.

quote:

Originally posted by rewind_plz I think US will invade Iran and they wont be in any position to invade anyone else in future.

What makes you so sure they're in the position to 'invade' anything as it is?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What makes you so sure they're in the position to 'invade' anything as it is?

Covert operations are already going in Iran. The invasion has already begun on the ground. The next phase, if it were to happen, would be air/missile strikes.

The ground invasion I think your referring to might be have to happen as Iran's response would most certainly be actions in Iraq, possibly Lebanon, Palestine, the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Hormuz shut down. Catastrophe on the oil markets. $200 a barrel oil! Guess who benefits? Shareholders of oil commodities/services.

If one was to bet on a war, then that person could buy long shares of oil securities, and watch the price skyrocket from a disruption in oil markets.

That just shows how the largest industry in the world benefits from war.

I wasn't terribly sure if Bush and Cheney were merely saber-rattling or actually gearing up to another war. It had all the markings of the lead-up to the Iraq debacle, plus it fits squarely in line with this Administration's dubious foreign policy of attacking first and asking questions later. Admiral Fallon, head of the U.S. Cent Com, had said that a strike against Iran was "not in the offing" back in November:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-...?nclick_check=1

He also said last September in regards to the neocons and war hawks that:

quote:

"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful," Fallon said in a half-hour interview with Al-Jazeera television broadcast Sept. 23. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...182188295_x.htm

And he's also expressed to Bush about no strike against Iran on his watch as the CENTCOM chief:

quote:

Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush�s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM. Fallon�s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration�s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon�s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran. http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738

So it seems to me that cooler heads were prevailing for a little while against the neocons like Cheney who circle jerk to the thought of another war in the Middle East.

But then today we hear about Cheney's office in regards to the NIE that demonstrated Iran wasn't building nukes since 2003:

quote:

Behind the scenes in Washington, it marked a reversal of a different sort: After years in which Bush appointees and White House staff won out on foreign-policy matters, career staffers in the intelligence world had scored a big victory. The authors of the Iran report -- career officials in the intelligence and diplomatic corps -- are among the same people who were on the losing side of the Iraq and Iran debates during the first Bush term. In 2002, some argued that Iraq didn't have an active nuclear-weapons program. They were sidelined by the more-hawkish foreign-policy strategists on the Bush team. Now, the more-cautious intelligence camp is grabbing the reins. The power shift can be seen in other areas where U.S. policy appears to be softening. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is supporting cultural exchanges and direct dialogue with Pyongyang. The White House recently invited a Syrian delegation to a Middle East peace conference. At the same time, longtime government career officials across Washington are taking on important posts once held by Bush loyalists. .....Through the summer and fall of 2007, as rumors leaked, officials in Mr. Cheney's office and on Capitol Hill grew increasingly concerned about the report's possible conclusions, according to people working at the White House and on Capitol Hill. White House and DNI officials say President Bush first got notice from DNI chief Mike McConnell in August that significant new intelligence had emerged on Iran. DNI officials met with White House staff a week before the report's release to go over the sources behind their assessment. Intelligence officials involved in this process say it wasn't a forum to invite changes. Knowing the report would probably leak, and given the importance of its conclusions, the White House decided to make public the main conclusions. Most of the report is still classified. People in Vice President Cheney's office saw the Dec. 3 announcement as a death blow to their Iran policy. The report's authors "knew how to pull the rug out from under us," says a long-time aide to the vice president, referring to the way the key judgments were presented. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120...&apl=y&r=680199

Yeah, that darn "intelligence" thingy really has that effect on asinine bullshit, bullheaded foreign policies, doesn't it?

So to answer your question, no, we're not attacking anyone any time soon. We've got too much of a mess to clean up in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. And despite the fact that our Administration gives two shits about anything else but their own "legacy", even they can't strike another country with this little credibility left.

We thought the 2003 anti-war protests were big; imagine what they'de be if Iran were hit.

I voted no,eventhough Israel is really pushing the U.S hard for this war,I highly dont see it happening.I probably would say there is higher chance of Israel attacking Iran then the U.S.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Covert operations are already going in Iran. The invasion has already begun on the ground. The next phase, if it were to happen, would be air/missile strikes. The ground invasion I think your referring to might be have to happen as Iran's response would most certainly be actions in Iraq, possibly Lebanon, Palestine, the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Hormuz shut down. Catastrophe on the oil markets. $200 a barrel oil! Guess who benefits? Shareholders of oil commodities/services. If one was to bet on a war, then that person could buy long shares of oil securities, and watch the price skyrocket from a disruption in oil markets. That just shows how the largest industry in the world benefits from war.

the sooner you graduate and do some time in the real world and stop hanging out with the loonies on campus the better!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What makes you so sure they're in the position to 'invade' anything as it is?

Because the world and they themselves think that they are superpower.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I voted no,eventhough Israel is really pushing the U.S hard for this war,I highly dont see it happening.I probably would say there is higher chance of Israel attacking Iran then the U.S.

Yes, thats second possiblity.. US playing a phoney war in Iran with supplying Israel all the weapons of mass destruction.

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