War with Iran?....

[infamous]

Is Bush seeking a war with Iran. Yes or no?

[Tormod]

I think yes. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I think no.

In all honesty, I think the initiator will be Israel. I do not believe that Bush is specifically trying to create a conflict, but if Israel gets involved, we most likely will also...

[infamous]

I think yes. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, and I also hope I'm wrong. Nevertheless, the way I see it, Bush would like to see either Iran or Israel make the first move so he could be excused for a reciprocating action. It's certainly true that 911 proved that radical Islam is determined to destroy the west. What has evolved since is a chess game with both ideologies seeking the check mate. Whether we were drawn in or whether all the conspiracy theories have some real bases, we may never know. What has become clear as crystal is, this conflict may lead us into WWIII. The movement to withdraw troups from Iraq may have already come too late. That is another point of view that I can only hope I'm also wrong about.....................................................Infy

[CraigD]

I suspect that US Pres. G. W. Bush wishes to invade Iran.

 

Although many have suggested that Bush professes to be a “born again” Christian and a “fundamentalist” only to win the votes of a large constituency, my assessment is that his beliefs are genuine, heartfelt, and were acquired in their present form around 1986. In keeping with a particular kind of Christian thinking, I believe he expects “Armageddon”, the end-of-days as described in the Christian Bible’s book of Revelations, to occur within his lifetime. As such, I think his long term policy goals are to further conflict and tension in the Middle East consistent with the interpretations of various recent Armageddonists (eg: Hal Lindsey).

 

This is not, I’m confident, a belief and desire held by the majority of Americans. I hope I am wrong in believing that they are held by Bush. In any case, I will be relieved when he is not longer president.

[Buffy]

It appears to be the same neo-con train of thought as Iraq. Its pretty well established that the current regime really has only minority support, and the ability of the theocratic oligarchy to manipulate elections and secondarily their control of the armed forces are the only things that are really maintaining their control. This allows various "we'll be greeted as liberators" theories to form.

 

Fortunately (I guess), we're so bogged down in Iraq and have no ground forces to spare, so planning appears to be limited to air assault plans which are always pointless: you do not gain any control without boots on the ground. Unfortunately the lesson not learned here is that people do not appreciate being attacked or even threatened and this can only be counter productive. It's really hard to come up with a scenario where the Iranians would simply "learn their lesson from being bombed into the stone age." You'd have all those practical moderates in the center hating the US for a very long period of time.

 

MB's right in saying the Administration would support an Israeli attack, but there is a recognition in Israel that this is an order of magnitude riskier that bombing a well-identified single site in Iraq 20 years ago. In order to have an impact on Iran's nuclear program which is spread out across a country many times larger in fortified and hidden facilities would take a *massive* attack, arguably *beyond* Israel's capabilities--at least without going nuclear themselves. So its likely if they do it at all, they'd have to coordinate with the US.

 

As with Iraq the decision to go ahead seems to be predicated on the opinion that radical Theocrats in Iran will forever have a stranglehold on the actions of the country (cf. the fact that virtually all of the candidates promoted by Ahmadinejad in the last election lost and there is indeed wide skepticism within the country, even among conservatives about the current path), and they would feel impervious to retailiation of using such a weapon (if a nuke went of mysteriously, how many candidates for retaliation would there be?). This in addition to proof that such weapons were "close to operational" and even the cherry-picked intelligence is not supporting that.

 

It would be so nice to think we have smart, thoughtful people running these things for us, to see the things like Douglas Feith yesterday on CNN practically apoplectic in his insistance that the administration's wilful misreading of Iraq intelligence was "all the CIAs fault" is kinda scary.

 

Some say its being planned for Spring though. Cross your fingers and hope that wiser heads prevail.

 

Debate rationality,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

He's seeking the benefits of a successful war with Iran, not the war itself, nor the myriad issues which will result from it.

 

To Buffy's point, "It would be so nice to think we have smart, thoughtful people running these things for us," it would be even nicer to actually have that (as opposed to just thinking it). :naughty:

 

 

:evil:

[Buffy]

it would be even nicer to actually have that (as opposed to just thinking it). :singer:

Soooooo true.....

 

More on the attitude of the leaders:

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

 

"I know," President Bush answered.

 

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

 

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

 

Liberals just don't have a sense of humor,

Buffy

[infamous]

Soooooo true.....

 

More on the attitude of the leaders:

 

 

 

Revealing article Buffy,....With the likes of Chirac constantly changing his position in an attempt at political correctness, the pleasers/appeasers have exposed their lack of resolute purpose. It appears the only group that really knows what there doing and where their going is the radical side of Islam. Not a comforting thought to say the least......................................Infy

[CraigD]

In all honesty, I think the initiator [of a war with Iraq] will be Israel.

Although a limited-purpose IDF attack on a specific Iranian target (similar to the 6/7/1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak research nuclear reactor) does not seem implausible, I doubt that Israel would initiate a protracted war with Iraq.

 

One reason is that Israel is a much smaller country than Iran, with about 1/10th the population, and 1/4th the GDP. Although the 2 nations have similar air combat capabilities in terms of numbers and technology of fighter aircraft (Iran has a substantially greater air transport and ground attack capability, mostly in helicopters), a protracted modern war between the two would, based on population and GDP, be similar to one between the US and Canada.

 

Another is geographic. Both nations have militaries dedicated primarily to border and air defense, with limited capability of launching attacks far from their own borders. Between them, depending on the route taken, lie Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. None of these countries would, I expect, be cooperative in allowing Israel to cross their borders to reach Iran (nor, one hopes, Iran to cross them in an attack on Israel).

 

From all the current worldwide rhetoric bemoaning the terrible tension and violence in the Middle East, and the saber-rattling of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it’s easy to conclude that the situation there could not be worse. Fortunately, in my analysis, since the quelling of Iraq’s expansionary ambitions following the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990), the nations of the region currently have predominantly defensive, not expansionary, military policies. Things could be worse.

[Southtown]

Whether we know it or not, they have been at war with us, and the State of Iran specifically has been at war with us, since 1979 when they declared war against the United States. They have not rescinded that declaration. So when we talk about engaging Iran as the Secretary, the new, future Secretary of Defense has talked about, we are talking about engaging someone who is at war with us, who has declared war with us, and who has been at war and, and as I will talk about here, and I think it has been widely reported in the press, has been doing a lot to substantiate the claim that they have been at war with us.

--

Sen. Rick Santorum, Speech to Bush dissenting Gates as Secretary of Defense, pp.8

 

On 26 October 2005, speaking at a seminar entitled "World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Echoing the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

--

GlobalSecurity.org, "The Zionist Entity and Iran," pp.

I voted yes, but I don't think it's Dubya's decision.

[Racoon]

 

From all the current worldwide rhetoric bemoaning the terrible tension and violence in the Middle East, and the saber-rattling of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it’s easy to conclude that the situation there could not be worse. Fortunately, in my analysis, since the quelling of Iraq’s expansionary ambitions following the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990), the nations of the region currently have predominantly defensive, not expansionary, military policies. Things could be worse.

 

The United States is now preparing their "proofs" of Iran's involvement in Iraq. The Bush administration needs clear evidence of Iran's meddling, so as not to look like Jackasses again after their 'concrete' case for Iraq was wrong.

 

Iran is instigating conflict, has declared its intentions for wiping out Israel, is seeding terrorism outside their borders, and is working overtime like gangbusters to aquire nuclear capabilities.

 

Its only a matter of time before radical religious fervor and oil interests spark another conflict in the region.

 

Lets hope that the people of Iran get sick enough of their clerical leadership to oust them from power. There is major dissent within Iran.

I'm also hopeful that people of the United States get sick enough of our current leadership to elect some fresh blood and ideas.

 

My guess is things are going to get a lot worse before they get better...

[Buffy]

...the State of Iran specifically has been at war with us, since 1979 when they declared war against the United States. They have not rescinded that declaration.... -- Sen. Rick Santorum

Boy that Santorum sure is wise. He's such an intellectual and political force that his adoring constituents, they, well, they were so impressed by him that they um....well, I guess they ran him out of office with a pretty embarrasing landslide...But he's the most patriot Sentator since probably Joe McCarthy and he's a smart and eloquent guy:

"Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons."

"Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

"if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.."

On why there were more Catholic Priests molesting kids in Boston than elsewhere:"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

On "support" for Terri Schiavo: "No, no. I don't have any regrets that I stood up for what I believed was right in defending a disabled person from being executed."

"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we've seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."

"I may not have the best name in the state of Pennsylvania politics -- if you look at the polls, most people would agree with that…"

Uh, yeah...

On 26 October 2005, speaking at a seminar entitled "World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism...."

Surprising! Kinda like hearing "If the guv'mint won't get those Mexicans to go back now, God help 'em cuz we sure will!" at a KKK meeting...but you're right, we really need to beat the crap out of any one who makes even the slightest verbal threat, because otherwise they won't respect us.

 

Of course they have no right to attack us for calling them "the axis of evil" because they *deserve* that. We're blameless....

 

But he started it,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Boy that Santorum sure is wise. He's such an intellectual and political force that his adoring constituents, they, well, they were so impressed by him that they um....well, I guess they ran him out of office with a pretty embarrasing landslide...But he's the most patriot Sentator since probably Joe McCarthy and he's a smart and eloquent guy:

So you're not arguing the factuality of Iran's war with the US, correct?

 

Surprising! Kinda like hearing "If the guv'mint won't get those Mexicans to go back now, God help 'em cuz we sure will!" at a KKK meeting...but you're right, we really need to beat the crap out of any one who makes even the slightest verbal threat, because otherwise they won't respect us.

 

Of course they have no right to attack us for calling them "the axis of evil" because they *deserve* that. We're blameless....

First, I would ask you if people living in the US should be registered taxpayers, or just the non-hispanics...

 

Second, we have a whole lot to talk about regarding Iran.

 

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun

[Buffy]

So you're not arguing the factuality of Iran's war with the US, correct?

How about the factuality of our war with Iran? No, only one of degree (its clearly a "cold" war, not a "hot" one), and of recognition of blame on both sides (something Private Citizen Santorum clearly argues against)...

First, I would ask you if people living in the US should be registered taxpayers, or just the non-hispanics...

Absolutely agree: no hispanics should be allowed to be registered taxpayers.

Second, we have a whole lot to talk about regarding Iran. Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun

I love the Sun!

 

But...the information this article was based on was leaked and then later dismissed by the White House itself. More importantly though, the intelligence is unfortunately irrelevant to administration policy:

[former National Intelligence Council Middle East analyst Paul] Pillar asked. "... Even if Iranian assistance to an Iraqi group is proven to everyone's satisfaction, the [administration's] policy never rested on that. The policy [is being driven by a] much larger sense of Iran as the prime bete noire in the region, and that is why the administration is trying to put together these coalitions with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Sunni states, that we've been reading about. None of this hinges [on the Iran dossier]. We are not going to call this off if we can't prove that Iran is furnishing munitions to Iraqi groups. ..."

The Iraqi government complained vociferously about these "arrests", and we backed down pretty darn quick because it appears the Iranians are assisting the *same* Shiite groups *we* support.

 

The only point here is not that the Iranians are our *friends*--the current government and the theocracy clearly are not--but they are not mindless, Caliphate-seeking extremists like al Quaeda, and in fact they are doing things that just happen to coincide with our interests. SO, you should consider that there is a line of approach to Iran that is more Kissingerian geopolitical manipulation than purist "we're against anything Iraq does no matter what even if it results in our shooting ourselves in the foot" which seems to drive neo-con thought these days.

 

Realpolitik,

Buffy

[Edella]

One event that should be factored in when considering Iran's resentment and mistrust of the U.S. (and the U.K.) is the coup d’etat ( Operation Ajax) orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence in 1953.Operation Ajax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The CIA and the British helped to undermine Iran's elected government through bribery, libel, and riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals.

 

Some 300 people died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

 

The overthrow of Iran's democratic government was followed by more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah. IMO, the anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in the 1979 Islamic Revolution was the direct result of Operation Ajax.

 

The U.S. involvement was not publicly acknowledged until fairly recently. In a New York Times article in March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that "the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development."

 

It is not difficult for me to see how this event has led to Iran's bitter hatred of America and The West in general.

[Qfwfq]

IMO, the anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in the 1979 Islamic Revolution was the direct result of Operation Ajax.

Actually, Pahlavi's attitude against Islam was only one factor in the revolt against him. It was however an important one to a good majority of the people, mainly the rural folk, who acclaimed Khomeini on his return from exile.

 

The revolt was however not only Islamic, it was essentially against the Shah and supported by virtually everyone not part of the regime itself, even people who weren't really religious died from the automatic weapon fire or risked their lives against it and this includes some old friends of mine who told me.

 

Absolutely agree: no hispanics should be allowed to be registered taxpayers.

:xx: Serious?