|
So... when is Iran being attacked? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dunya |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flotser
I think bush will never attack Iran or NK, because he is a coward.
he attacked Iraq, because it was the easiest target, and not because of the "War On Terror". |
In the first time of my life I agree with a zionist:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Iran would be a whole different ball of wax for a couple of reasons.
(feel free to dispute; but I'm counting on it...:p )
a) The heat from 9-11 is too cold. Iran is too distant an arguement to try and convince anyone of any real links between them and 9-11. While a country's memory may be long, people's memory's are short and fickle.
b) There are rumblings that the people of Iran themselves are tired of their theocracy. The people are watching their neighbor very closely. It would be very prudent for Iraq to be the loadstone and example of what a country really can be (again; remembering that Iraq used to be a very affluent country in the past). This is why the elections are very important (/understatement).
c) Unless the U.S. has a solid, solid arguement with real facts, they will be hard-pressed in having any world support. The most likely course should be that the Freedom ball is already rolling and they should let the interia of their efforts be realized before continuing a ball that could already be over the threshold.
What do you guys think? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
I don't believe the Bush administration has stated that they will influence the Iraqi elections in any way. I also don't believe you have any proof that they will. In fact, if an anti-american Iraqi leader was chosen it would break none of the official reasons given at any time as to why we invaded Iraq, at any point. |
Yes, well, of course they didn't state it, but wouldn't it be pointless to invade a country with a bad regime and then have an even worse regime installed? I mean, seriously, if radical islamists somehow get in power, that war would be like the biggest fiasco in modern history, right next to the italian war on Ethiopia.
| quote: | Additionally, if,
Reality(Bush administration statement):
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, and promotion of freedom.
Your mind:
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, promotion of freedom, and rigging of subsequent Iraqi election.
Then what standard are you using to translate the worth of the institution of democracy/freedom into monetary value? At what point does this worth become less than an imaginary hidden agenda which co-opts the official justification for entering the country entirely? |
Right, the US is so altruistic that its primary geopolitical goal is helping opressed poor people. The fact that Iraq has a lot of oil and an unfriendly attitude towards the US had nothing to do with it. And where the hell did you get the idea that US and Iran are not on bad terms? Hell, Bush said Iran is in the axis of evil together with Iraq and NK, while Iran commonly reffers to US as "the great satan". Yup, quite a sign of cordial relationship, really. |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes, well, of course they didn't state it, but wouldn't it be pointless to invade a country with a bad regime and then have an even worse regime installed? I mean, seriously, if radical islamists somehow get in power, that war would be like the biggest fiasco in modern history, right next to the italian war on Ethiopia.
Right, the US is so altruistic that its primary geopolitical goal is helping opressed poor people. The fact that Iraq has a lot of oil and an unfriendly attitude towards the US had nothing to do with it. And where the hell did you get the idea that US and Iran are not on bad terms? Hell, Bush said Iran is in the axis of evil together with Iraq and NK, while Iran commonly reffers to US as "the great satan". Yup, quite a sign of cordial relationship, really. |
And how exactly are they going to pull this off...other than rigging the election?
And even if they did pull this off would it not be quite obvious that the newly elected leader was pro American after a short amount of time...and lead to further chaos in the country...i cant see ordinary Iraqis accepting a situation whereby they believe the Americans are pulling the strings of the newly elected leader..can you... |
|
|
| Dj Tomer |
| quote: | Originally posted by zig
And how exactly are they going to pull this off...other than rigging the election?
|
Look at the 2000 US election, they have creative ways of 'helping democracy out' :rolleyes: |
|
|
| JM |
the sooner the better... but i'm betting first part of 2006.
>JM< |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Tomer
Look at the 2000 US election, they have creative ways of 'helping democracy out' :rolleyes: |
eeh i know that...this situation is different...
100,000 thousand American citizens and 1300 troops didnt die prior to the 2000 elections in the US...but this is the situation in Iraq...my point is if the elections are rigged the situation in Iraq will become much worse and understandably so imo...do you honestly expect Iraqi citizens to accept a puppet government...and 6 months after the election a McDonalds on every corner from Basra to Baghdad i seriously doubt it..if the Iraqis feel the election has been rigged and an unpopular leader installed...it will cause further mayhem in the region...
im not so stupid to believe that the Americans are not working on the outcome they would desire..and probably have hundreds of operatives on the ground in Iraq working for such a solution...but if the management of the war so far is anything to judge by this will soon become apparent to everybody including the Iraqi people and will hardly help the American cause of winning this war..if anything it wil prolong it imo..and make it much harder for the Americans to justify their continued occupation of Iraq on the grounds that they are delivering democracy............................................ |
|
|
| Dj Tomer |
They're screwed either way really.
Of course, if they install a puppet government, they could always blame the resulting uprising on something Saddam did 10 years ago, just like they blame everything else in Iarq on him. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
The US won't invade or attack Iran.
The US won't invade because the US doesn't have an invading army as we have seen in Iraq. We have a quick fighting force that is able to destroy rapidly but not built to hold ground for long periods of time. Sure we have over a million people in our armed services but a large part of them are in the navy out at sea, are at command posts manning equipment, or in the airforces flying planes. We just don't have a million man ground force built to occupy.
The reason we won't attack at all is a few reasons. First we could never be certain that all the nuclear components would be destroyed since they are probably spread out. Second I am sure they have bases built underground that are impossible to find or in cities. An attack would just give Iran justification to start developing weapons, using an attack as the excuse. Also an attack would probably just lead to Iran either moving to disrupt Iraq and Afghanistan or attack Israel.
I don't want Iran to be attacked but I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, simply because they have no need for them. At this point in time, why develop nuclear weapons? If you need them to be a deterrant so you can do awful things and not be attacked then something needs to be done to stop you. I don't understand why the people of Iran talk about how much they have the leadership for decades, yet they never do anything other than talk about revolt. If it is so bad do something about it! |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
The US won't invade or attack Iran.
The US won't invade because the US doesn't have an invading army as we have seen in Iraq. We have a quick fighting force that is able to destroy rapidly but not built to hold ground for long periods of time. Sure we have over a million people in our armed services but a large part of them are in the navy out at sea, are at command posts manning equipment, or in the airforces flying planes. We just don't have a million man ground force built to occupy.
The reason we won't attack at all is a few reasons. First we could never be certain that all the nuclear components would be destroyed since they are probably spread out. Second I am sure they have bases built underground that are impossible to find or in cities. An attack would just give Iran justification to start developing weapons, using an attack as the excuse. Also an attack would probably just lead to Iran either moving to disrupt Iraq and Afghanistan or attack Israel.
I don't want Iran to be attacked but I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, simply because they have no need for them. At this point in time, why develop nuclear weapons? If you need them to be a deterrant so you can do awful things and not be attacked then something needs to be done to stop you. I don't understand why the people of Iran talk about how much they have the leadership for decades, yet they never do anything other than talk about revolt. If it is so bad do something about it! |
I agree the US will probably never invade Iran..rather they will choose to destableise the current regime by various methods..the first one being what we are auctually talking about now..ie they will leak selective details to the media of an impending military operation against that country..and this method of smoke and mirrors can be very effective...i would say destabilization is the weapon of choice at the moment.....
Other parts of your post are contradictory
| quote: | | The reason we won't attack at all is a few reasons. First we could never be certain that all the nuclear components would be destroyed since they are probably spread out. Second I am sure they have bases built underground that are impossible to find or in cities. An attack would just give Iran justification to start developing weapons, using an attack as the excuse. Also an attack would probably just lead to Iran either moving to disrupt Iraq and Afghanistan or attack Israel |
Surely the reason to attack is to be certain that nuclear weapons are destroyed.. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
Yeah it sorta is contradictory.
The reasons to attack Iran would be to stop their nuclear weapons progress but also since that would be impossible without conventional forces and could just force an escalation of their speed in developing nuclear weapons and their readiness over such an attack to be willing to spread the technology it wouldn't make any sense. |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Yeah it sorta is contradictory.
The reasons to attack Iran would be to stop their nuclear weapons progress but also since that would be impossible without conventional forces and could just force an escalation of their speed in developing nuclear weapons and their readiness over such an attack to be willing to spread the technology it wouldn't make any sense. |
Destabilization dosnt cost any American troops to die...it probably just costs money...a bloodless coup would be the ideal situation for the Americans and im sure they are working on it... |
|
|
|
|
