Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another, wider war looms.

  1. Jan 25, 2007 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The signs are very disturbing. Israeli PM Olmert urges action against Iran, but hints that there may be room for diplomacy. His words for action border on ultimatum, however, and he made no offer of diplomacy, insisting instead that the "International Community" needs to take action against Iran.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_olmert_1

    In a parallel move, Bush hammered on Iran for being supportive of the Shiites and mentioned Iran a number of times in his State of the Union address. He didn't bother hammering the Saudis, who have said publicly that they will provide support to the Sunnis if Shiites retain the upper hand in Iraq. He also linked the Iraq war to 9-11 as he does at every opportunity, though the majority of the hijackers identified were Saudis. He made mention of "diplomacy" in the region, but has shown no willingness to negotiate with the Iranian government - so similar to the way he manipulated the US into attacking Iraq. His idea of diplomacy is to issue ultimatums, and pursue sanction against "enemies" instead of talking to them to see if we can establish any common ground. When the "enemy" fails to obey his orders, he declares that diplomacy has failed, and just like that we are at an "impasse" with no possible political solution.

    The Stennis carrier group will soon be in the Persian Gulf, expanding our presence to two full carrier groups. The Stennis is presently in San Diego taking on supplies and additional weaponry and aircraft and will head for the Gulf soon. I fear that once the group is deployed in the Gulf, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush will "interpret" Iran's response as an attack on the US, and launch an air war against Iran, thus plunging the region into a wider war, against the wishes of the US voters and our elected representatives. This set of circumstances - the speeches, the lack of diplomatic dialog with the "enemy" and the prepositioning of massive military force all point to another contrived and unnecessary war. If I am right, and I hope to be wrong, this will not be a war of a few "surgical" strikes against military/nuclear targets - those could be launched from distant land bases. It will be a war of non-stop and massive air strikes - the kind of attacks that are made-to-order for close-positioned carriers capable of many, many sorties/day.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 25, 2007 #2
    Luckily, Bush just doesn't have any political capital left. Anything that he had after 9/11 was spent on Iraq. If he tries to send troops into Iran, the Democrats (as well as the majority of Republicans) will vote to completely cut off funding, leaving him without any recourse. If he goes against the wishes of the Congress and spends money that he wasn't given, you can bet that the Dems will bring articles of impeachment.
     
  4. Jan 25, 2007 #3

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I don't think Bush can't do anything like that because it is the end of his term and next year it'll be all about the election, they will want the war to be in a somewhat stable situation like it probably will be with the extra troops there to quell Baghdad. It'll look nice and peachy (relatively speaking) going into a possibly democrat-led next term.
     
  5. Jan 25, 2007 #4

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Being near the end of his term also means he has little to lose personally. Neither does Cheney, who has absolutely no plans to run for President (i.e. - Congress can start the second impeachment right after Bush leaves office).

    It depends on whether Bush really believes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are part of an 'Axis of Evil' that need to be eliminated at any cost or whether bad advice trapped him into starting a bad war that he can't get out of. I think he could find a face-saving way to withdraw troops if he wanted to. That means there's a chance that he considers it very important to at least start a war against Iran, even if he won't be around long enough to finish it.

    He can't invade Iran because we don't have enough troops to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time, while still maintaining troops in Asia to protect against North Korea. He can bring Iran into the war with air strikes, though. Once the war is started, Congress will go along the way it has for virtually the entire history of the United States.
     
  6. Jan 25, 2007 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My biggest fear is that a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident will be fabricated and the US naval air forces will "retaliate" in such a way that the flag-wavers back home will rally around Bush. Make no mistake, many thoughtless people will support murder and destruction if Bush claims that Iran attacked us and the war is necessary.

    The recent rhetoric and the deployment of a 2nd carrier group looks to me like Bush is engineering a broad-based expansion of the war. There is simply no need for a second carrier group in the gulf. Al qaida does not have a navy nor an air force, nor do the Sunni insurgents. The only reason I can think that 2 carrier groups are needed is if Bush intends to take out Iran's capability to harass shipping in the Gulf and destroy its aging air force. If Congress does not put a leash on Bush now, the next 5 or 10 presidents of the US are going to have a lot of trouble on their hands, and the Middle East will be even more of a mess than it is presently.
     
  7. Jan 25, 2007 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Gulf of Tonkin-like incidents have happened more than once, not always resulting in largescale war. Recall the Gulf of Sidra incidents - likely the same prescription, but much more limited in scope.

    Or, it's just a projection of force...something to back up the rhetoric.
     
  8. Jan 25, 2007 #7
    It seems to me that the gulf is a poor place to put our carriers. They will be easy targets for land based missiles. They will also be operating in a very tight area already full of supertankers. This is not a good place to be playing a game of, "who blinks first", or "dodge ball."

    We could accidentally end up being the ones who curtail shipping in the Gulf.
    http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19103
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  9. Jan 25, 2007 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's a big part of what makes me nervous. Any little problem with the the Iranian defense to any attack can be portrayed as an "attack" on US forces and we are sucked into a wider war, with more people being murdered for no reason.
     
  10. Jan 25, 2007 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  11. Jan 26, 2007 #10
  12. Jan 26, 2007 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Interesting comments here regarding Bush's speech on Jan 10 -

    Bush Warns Iran: ‘I Recently Ordered The Deployment Of An Additional Carrier Strike Group To The Region’

    Comment 11.
     
  13. Jan 26, 2007 #12

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I wouldn't have thought so (about the situation) but it seems turbo is spot on. Deploying more carriers, authorising targets; sounds just about the right environment for an incident to occur.

    Of course, it has been said that Iran was a target a long time ago.
     
  14. Jan 26, 2007 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have sent letters to my congressional representatives and to my local newspaper, but these will accomplish nothing, if the powers that be will not listen. I fear that soon, the Middle East will be a bombed-out mess (even more so than now!) and the US will be the pariah of the world, thanks to George Bush.
     
  15. Jan 27, 2007 #14
    He didn't manipulate the US government to attack Iraq, he was in fact the manipulated.
     
  16. Jan 27, 2007 #15

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    By Al Qaeda?

    Through the planting of false information tortured out of their operatives?
    Al-Qaeda lured U.S. to Iraq
    By Gwynne Dyer
    (Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.)

    Garth
     
  17. Jan 27, 2007 #16

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm not blaming Bush per se, he's probably just a face.
     
  18. Jan 27, 2007 #17
    And the face behind that face is Dick Cheney.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml
     
  19. Jan 27, 2007 #18
  20. Jan 28, 2007 #19
    Here I thought the guy was just wanting a job and lots of money, that it was the work of Al Qaeda, who could look a couple moves in advance is intriguing, well Chess has its origins in the ME, no?
    JS
     
  21. Jan 29, 2007 #20
    Does anyone actually think they'll bomb Iran? Let alone send in ground troups? I think again this is just posturing in the same way as we saw off China, if the US bombs Iran and it turns out they had nothing, it will be extremelly embarrasing, IMO the only time the US would act is if it had good intelligence, frankly I have seen much sign of that :wink: :smile: if you'll pardon the double entendre.:tongue2:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Another, wider war looms.
  1. Gaza War (Replies: 35)

Loading...