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

[Wardw]

So we go back to a MAD situation, everybody has got the nuc.

Remember, even Hari Seldon could not predict "the mule"

It only takes one madman to whom MAD does not mean a tinkers cuss.

 

[Omid]

http://www.nowaroniran.com/gallery/photos/nowar.jpg
http://peaceiran.blogspot.com/2005/02/shirin-ebadis-opposition-to-war.html


Iranians answer unity rally call
Tehran protesters brave the capital's worst winter in decades
Tens of thousands of Iranians have braved blizzards to attend rallies marking the 1979 Islamic revolution
The crowds turned out despite the city being virtually paralysed by heavy snowfalls in its worst winter for decades.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4253171.stm


We don't need Bush or any other m**********r to bring us freedom.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

Current efforts are to determine targets to strike from the air. This most certainly is plausible.

But like usual, it would be a short-term thought process and a repeat of mis-estimation and lack of understanding of the region. What needs to be considered is; 1) how a preemptive strike would help the current regime with anti-American sentiments, and 2) would the air strikes be the only military action necessary?

If the U.S. takes such preemptive measures, it is likely to destroy rather than enable a pro-American revolution from within. And though the U.S. may be satisfied with a quick and safe air strike, do you think the Iranians would leave it at that? Would we have global support for another war effort, especially if no nuclear weapon program exists? (Of course if these facilities are blown to pieces, who would know.)

This administration had an agenda from the start that defies reason or the best interest of American well-being. Let's hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

It seems like everyone is forgetting some of the testimony that led to Iraq being invaded in the first place (or maybe you guys just don't watch C-Span as much as I do). One of the arguments made by the experts that testified before Congress was that Iraq would be far easier to take down through military means, but also that Iraq had almost no chance of a regime change being brought about from within, whereas Iran did. Part of the reason democracy was installed by force in Iraq was to create additional pressure on Iran, which the experts believed could easily fall due to that pressure. The plan was the create a democratic bulwark that could stand as testimony to neighboring nations with its success. The US would be turning its back on the original long-term plan if it didn't wait long enough to find out whether or not Iraq could become that bulwark and could pressure Iran into change from within. No other regime changes will be instituted in the middle east by the US for quite some time at least - the soonest possibility being after Iraq has become a stable democratic military ally (assuming that happens, of course).

 

[SOS2008]

Part of the reason democracy was installed by force in Iraq was to create additional pressure on Iran, which the experts believed could easily fall due to that pressure. The plan was the create a democratic bulwark that could stand as testimony to neighboring nations with its success. The US would be turning its back on the original long-term plan...

While I agree with the differences between Iraq and Iran regarding higher probability of change from within, I disagree that this administration's agenda was to promote democracy (per the old and unsuccessful domino theory), or that there is real and meaningful foreign policy at all.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of a foreign enemy” – James Madison

 

[vanesch]

No other regime changes will be instituted in the middle east by the US for quite some time at least - the soonest possibility being after Iraq has become a stable democratic military ally (assuming that happens, of course).

You mean, like the Islamic Republic of Iraq, directed by an Ayatollah (Sistani) ?
Where have I seen another Ayatollay leading a country ...

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[SOS2008]

You mean, like the Islamic Republic of Iraq, directed by an Ayatollah (Sistani)?

Exactly. First was the claim of Iraqs involvement in 9-11 (the invasion of Iraq still is referred to as a "war on terrorism"), then the WMD and how we must rush into extinguish the "smoking gun" before it became a "mushroom cloud," then it was to spread democracy and freedom, and now it is back to the original goal of regime change--which is that an Islamic Republic of Iraq is okay--Bush and administration have basically said this.

...as long as they are allies (to the Christian Republic of America?)

Don't underestimate this administration and it's propaganda machine. The only difference now are the members of Congress, including Republicans, who would like to be reelected. But who knows what could happen between now and 2006.

 

[vanesch]

...as long as they are allies (to the Christian Republic of America?)

We'll see

 

[SOS2008]

We'll see

Wanna go with that, or leave me in suspense?

 

[vanesch]

Wanna go with that, or leave me in suspense?

I wanted to say: it is not evident that an Iranian Ayatollah-directed Islamic Republic of Iraq is what the US imagines as the best ally against Iran
And I don't know if the sentiments of Sistani for the US are so very warm...

EDIT: In fact, Saddam did very well as an ally against Iran, until he misunderstood his boss (the US) in 1991, when he asked for permission to invade Kuwait...

 

[SOS2008]

...it is not evident that an Iranian Ayatollah-directed Islamic Republic of Iraq is what the US imagines as the best ally against Iran.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say is that the Bush administration propaganda machine is not to be underestimated -- i.e., they are now saying they would accept an Islamic government in Iraq. And perhaps Bush would support an Islamic government if it is an ally--which is what was wanted from regime change. Saudi Arabia is not the model of democracy, but because they are an ally... There is a list of non-democratic countries, including those with "ruthless" dictators like Saddam that the U.S. has supported--not so long ago the Shah of Iran. Your point that Sistani may not be an ally, well now that is something to consider.

Thank you for your reply!

 

[pelastration]

The actual 'Iran' issue is that the West fears nuclear weapons in Iran hands. The West uses the Non Proliferation Treaty to forbid Iran to develop such weapons.

But: "The nuclear states have tried to contain the spread of nuclear weapons by a range of technical, political and legal means, mostly under the framework of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the failure of the nuclear states to implement their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to eliminate nuclear weapons threatens this. Mexico, for example, told the International Court of Justice in November 1995 that if the nuclear states did not meet their commitments to disarm within a reasonable timeframe " we would need to revise our continuation as party to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." (Sergio Gonzalez Galvez, Undersecretary of Foreign Relations for Mexico. Presentation to the International Court of Justice, November 3, 1995.)"
http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/A%20bomb%20in%20search.htm

OK, that's maybe old news ... but the majors nuclear powers need also to execute their obligations. Just like Iran must.

 

[the number 42]

I've always found the 'our WMDs good, your WMDs bad' attitude pretty inane, and probably not the best basis for negotiations.

 

[Gokul43201]

But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President.

 

[the number 42]

But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

I stand corrected

Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President.

You mean God and Junior aren't one & the same?