Will Mr. Bush Attack Iran? - Ardian's Opinion

[ardian007]

Hi everybody, what do you think will Mr. Bush next move is he going to attack Iran?

I have heard some rumors that U.S.A. troops are trying to find a pretext, (justifications), in order to attack Iran, as they did for Iraq, will they?
I think they are just mad about the petrol nothing else.
What do you think, will they attack Iran or not?
If you have more information send, me any thanks, Ardian...

 

[russ_watters]

No, the US is not going to attack Iran. I don't have any information for you though - the rumors are just that: rumors.

 

[wasteofo2]

No, the US is not going to attack Iran. I don't have any information for you though - the rumors are just that: rumors.

You know, right after 9/11, and hell, even before 9/11, people were spreading rumors that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq...

 

[mattmns]

I think that the US will attack something within the next 6 months or so, or at least get started.

 

[the number 42]

If you'll forgive me quoting myself, this is from my opening post on the thread 'Where will it end?'

This is from an article in The New Yorker by award winning reporter, Seymour Hersh:

"Report: U.S. conducting secret missions in Iran. New Yorker article says
U.S. commandos in place in 10 Middle East nations.

...One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6832704/

 

[Dayle Record]

This is a link to an article I saw today.


http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r

 

[chound]

US is sending flights to Iran to check the defences and spot potential targets. "The idea is to get the Iranians turn on the radar to get an assesment of their air defences" an Intelligence surce in washington said. Source: The Hindu, 30th January, 2005

 

[Integral]

US is sending flights to Iran to check the defences and spot potential targets. "The idea is to get the Iranians turn on the radar to get an assesment of their air defences" an Intelligence surce in washington said. Source: The Hindu, 30th January, 2005

This sort of game has being in place with the military for the past 50yr, is goes on all the time and it is significant of nothing.

While I have little respect for Shrub's intelligence, I cannot believe that the Pentagon would allow him to start yet another war. Though, it is always possible, that if they see an opening, the Iranians could attempt to take Iraq.

I have absolutely no basis for saying that other then ... Well they were at war with Iraq for most of the '80s so there are probably a few left who would like to finish it.

 

[russ_watters]

You know, right after 9/11, and hell, even before 9/11, people were spreading rumors that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq...

There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what?

While I have little respect for Shrub's intelligence, I cannot believe that the Pentagon would allow him to start yet another war.

Why...? Because we can't fight another war right now. Even for those who think Bush wants to, that's a point that can't be ignored. Though the military is technically supposed to be able to fight two large regional wars simultaneously, we could not fight a war in Iran right now. It just ain't going to happen.

 

[spender]

USA on orders from Tel Aviv will attack Iranian nuclear power plants.Syria is also very propable target.One of them for sure.

 

[Scientific Method]

President Bush is planning to attack every enemy of Israel: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, North Korea, etc.

 

[vanesch]

There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what? Why...? Because we can't fight another war right now. Even for those who think Bush wants to, that's a point that can't be ignored

I didn't know that factual predictions were of any value in the determination of Bush's politics :tongue:
I think the US CAN start a second war. They cannot win it, but they can start it :rofl:. So let's give it a go :tongue2:

 

[spender]

And draft is coming :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: .I have no respect for people who voted and support this government,only death of their close ones will teach them to think!

 

[wasteofo2]

There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what?

The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq. David Koresh, as far as I know, didn't actually turn out to be Jesus, but there were plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about Bush wanting to attack Iraq, and other policy decisions, that came to pass.

 

[kat]

The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq. David Koresh, as far as I know, didn't actually turn out to be Jesus, but there were plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about Bush wanting to attack Iraq, and other policy decisions, that came to pass.

Hmm, you must have been listening to different people then I, cause I don't remember that one...

 

[ramollari]

we could not fight a war in Iran right now. It just ain't going to happen.

Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?

 

[Gokul43201]

This thread is just too funny :rofl:

 

[russ_watters]

Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?

Besides the ones I already gave? Well, one good reason not to is that we don't have a reason to attack Iran.

The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq.

Besides what kat said, that's a self-reinforcing, unfalisifiable statement (ie, its meaningless): since Bush has 4 years left in office, any rumor that has yet to come true still might (you can't count up how many have and how many haven't) - therefore you cannot base a judgement of an individual rumor on history.

 

[the number 42]

This thread is just too funny :rofl:

Why? Because some members are saying that the US isn't out to get Iran?

 

[mattmns]

You live in London, will the UK join the US in attacking Iran, if it does happen? If yes, then what will happen to Blair lol? Assassinated?

 

[the number 42]

I don't think Blair and Labour can afford to follow Bush any further. He knows Labour will lose the election in May if the voters think for a second that he would. Having said that, these people are such bare-faced liars you can never tell what their true intentions are. However, Blair's words at Bush's inauguration weren't too warlike: “It is possible to construct an international agenda that is more consensual, more multilateral than what has gone before," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6846727/

As for assasination, we haven't gone in for that over here in recent years. However, the leader of the Labour party before Blair died of an untimely heart attack in 1994, paving the way for Blair to fill his shoes, move Labour politically to the centre, and win the election in 1997. I'm not given to conspiracy theories, but as John Smith was a traditional socialist, you can bet that the UK would never have backed Bush's adventures.
http://www.ukpolitics.org.uk/cgi/viewnews.cgi?id=1017135078

 

[vanesch]

Besides the ones I already gave? Well, one good reason not to is that we don't have a reason to attack Iran.

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

In the first two, at least, Iran is for real where Iraq was a sham. Hmmm. Maybe Iran was the real target all the time and Iraq was only conquered to become "airstrip one". Afghanistan being "airstrip two".

 

[GENIERE]

I’m reasonably certain the US has fought its last conventional war. Military force will simply be one of many means to subdue an enemy. Iran might look forward to immense political pressure, a few surgical strikes, economic subterfuge of unimaginable proportions, shipping embargos, 10’s of billions of dollars in support of a revolution…

. . .

 

[Gokul43201]

Maybe Iran was the real target all the time and Iraq was only conquered to become "airstrip one".

I wonder how kindly the Shia majority party that gets voted in will take to the idea of the US using their land as "airstrip one" in a campaign against Iran ?

 

[Gokul43201]

Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?

1. Resources are spread too thin to support a full-fledged war against Iran in the near future. Perhaps you think that the Iranian Military capability is comparable to Iraq's ?

Iraq's military comprised of virtually no air force or navy, and an army that surrendered at the first sign of US troops.

Iran, on the other hand has a serious air force comprising hundreds of fixed wing and rotary craft as well as a bunch of UAVs (yes Iran really has these). Their navy includes a couple each of subs and frigates, but several each of missile, amphibious, minelaying and support craft. Their army has about 300,000 tropps, but more importantly, they actually have serious tank batallions and amored cav and mobile artillery units. Invading Iran will not be the (military) walk-in-the-park that Iraq was.

Also keep in mind that Iran is about 4 times the size of Iraq, and the terrain is much more harsh. And the Rumsfeld Doctrine, having failed resoundingly, Pentagon will no doubt have to go back to something resembling the Powell Doctrine (retaining some aspects of the Rummy Plan, but surely asking for more boots on the ground).

2. Congress is once bitten.

3. I used to think that it would be impossible to gain popular support for this idea, but I'm not so sure anymore.

4. A draft will be an incredibly tough sell unless you have a direct attack on the homeland. In the case of Iraq, the administration was able to fool the people into blaming Saddam for 9/11.

5. No money.

I can see only one possibility for a war against Iran in anywhere near the immediate future. It would be if Iran makes a move against Iraq, and the World (UN/NATO/Middle East) has to rally together, and the role of the US is substantially diminished.

I'm actually mad at Bush for not being able to pose a military threat to Iran (due to the Iraq effort), who is a much bigger threat to stability in the ME. He can talk all he wants about "not ruling out the military option", but Iran is clearly calling his bluff.

 

[russ_watters]

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

I don't consider the first two to be credible threats and the third is decreasing because Iran is moderating. Also, these 3 could be said about a handful of other countries, and the last two about dozens. Its too broad of an argument - need something specific.

SA, I won't argue 'if we did this to Iraq for this reason, we'll do that to Iran for that reason' - separate countries, separate issues. Like I said before, the same arguments could be made about a number of other countries. And here's one of the key differences:

I'm actually mad at Bush for not being able to pose a military threat to Iran (due to the Iraq effort), who is a much bigger threat to stability in the ME.

I tend to disagree: I'm not a big fan of Iran, but they haven't invaded anyone lately. Hussein's expansionist desires (if not his efforts) were neverending. Does anyone really believe that had we normalized relations with him, he would have immediately restarted his WMD programs in full force and begun plotting his next move? Iran, apparently, has no such ambitions (their WMD program is a bargaining chip and nothing more).

edit: apropos again - Iran Open to Ties to US. This actually looks to me like the Libya situation that the liberal media ignored: "rational fear," leading to compromise. The nuclear plant thing is just a chip that Iran may be getting ready to cash-in.

 

[the number 42]

Remember too that Iran is a Muslim state, in contrast to secular Iraq under Hussein, thus the potential to offend neighbouring Muslim nations is greater. There are many other reasons why attacking Iran isn't a good idea, but let's face it: GWB is not a man of good ideas.

 

[kat]

GWB is not a man of good ideas.

Lol, perhaps...but, the mayor of Baghdad wants to build him a monument. Maybe he knows something you don't... hmmmmm...

 

[Smurf]

Next time you get a chance to look at a map of the middle east get a big black marker and draw an X on Afghanistan, one more on Iraq and a slightly smaller one in Israel. That's where the Americans are.

 

[the number 42]

I hope you are going to edit that so I know what the r**s you're on about.

 

[BobG]

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

I tend to agree with Russ that there is no chance of the US invading Iran while it's busy with Iraq.

That doesn't rule out a few airstrikes to eliminate any known nuclear facilities.

But, vanesch's reasons certainly have validity. Iran meets the criteria Bush used for invading Iraq a lot better than Iraq did. While we can deal with Iran to certain extent without invading them, the possibility we could invade them might have added a little extra motivation for Iran to deal with the Western world over the issue of giving terrorists free travel through their country and possibly even over Iran's nuclear programs.

As to the credibility of each reason:

WMD - I doubt they're a nuclear weapon threat, yet, but they're closer than Iraq was, both to developing nuclear weapons and to developing a way to deliver them, at least within the Middle East region.

Links with national terrorism - The typical link. The government won't directly support them, since they don't want responsibility for the actions of terrorist groups, but they are 'friendly' to them. They've been a preferred safe route for terrorists moving from one country to another and Iranians have probably privately provided some monetary and other logistic support. Pakistan was at least as supportive before they realized they would be target number two if Al-qaeda fled across the border. Libya was also as supportive. Even Saudi Arabia was at least pretty lax about terrorism. We've had some success dealing with a few countries about their policy on terrorism without invading them, although the fact that we invaded Afghanistan probably had something to do with that.

Lack of freedom - Yes, but that could apply to many countries. If you were going to liberate a country and hope a democratic government would be successful, Iran wouldn't be at the top of the list, but it would be a lot higher than Iraq. (If we were expanding this to include groups of people instead of just established nations, the Kurds would probably be the most likely to establish a successful democracy - but giving them their own country would really cause trouble).

 

[Gokul43201]

Minor nitpick :

Pakistan was at least as supportive before they realized they would be target number two if Al-qaeda fled across the border.

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan houses (now and before) way more terrorists near its eastern border.

 

[the number 42]

If you were going to liberate a country and hope a democratic government would be successful, Iran wouldn't be at the top of the list, but it would be a lot higher than Iraq.

If you put it like that, then it would almost seem remiss not 'liberating' Iran.

(If we were expanding this to include groups of people instead of just established nations, the Kurds would probably be the most likely to establish a successful democracy - but giving them their own country would really cause trouble).

And we wouldn't want to cause trouble by liberating them, would we Let's just remind ourselves that we dissolved previous borders and created Iraq in the first place, and later armed Hussein to the teeth. So let's at least not pretend that interfering in other peoples' business is being done for altruistic reasons, such as giving people the gift of freedom.

"In 1979 the most aggressive and tyrannical of the Iraqi officials, Saddam Hussein, seized power in Iraq... Germany, Britain, France and the United States all armed Iraq - in an effort to create a bulwark against the spread of the Islamic threat [from Iran]. Help was given to develop all kinds of weapons".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_05.shtml

"[After WWI] Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. ...The mandate united the three disparate provinces under the imported Hashimite King Faisal, from the Hijaz region of Arabia. Apart from its natural geographical differences, the new Iraq was a complex mix of ethnic and religious groups. In particular the rebellious Kurds in the north had little wish to be ruled from Baghdad, while in the south the tribesmen and Shi's had a similar abhorrence of central control. In implementing their mandate, the British had certainly sown the seeds of future unrest. The Iraqis deeply resented the borders imposed on them".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml

 

[Smurf]

I think we're vastly underestimating the military power of the US when we say they're 'tied up' in Iraq, how many are actually there? 20,000? 50,000? I don't remember the last time I heard numbers, but it's mostly the marine corp isn't it, I think if Bush wanted to he could muster a force to invade Iran.