War on Iran

I still think this is sort of inevitable, so place your bets.

I say 27 March 2007. Plucked that number of out of thin air, so let's see how far off I am. (you can quote me fore integrity if you wish, otherwise I could be tempted to change the date to the correct one once the war starts... not that I cannot edit anyone else's posts :P)

A related story from BBC News:

Quote:
[size=18]US accuses Iran over Iraq bombs[/size]

The US military has accused the "highest levels" of Iran's government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents.

Senior defence officials told reporters in Baghdad that the bombs were being used to deadly effect, killing more than 170 US troops since June 2004.

The weapons known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

[url= More...[/url]

This highly sophisticated weapon is putting a quarter ince thick of steel on one side of the explosive, and a 3 quarter inch thick piece on the other.

Upon explosion the onequarter inch think piece will disentegrate, but the three quarter inch think plate will be launched as a projectile. an armour piercing projectile.

You would not want to be on either side of this, but if the three quarter inch plate is facing, say an Abrams tank, it has a very good chance to pierce it's armour (obviously depending on the distance, amount and power of explosive used).

Very sophisticated. Too sophisticated. It is not as if some could just bolt two steel plates around an explosive. (Yes I am being sarcastic.)

salaam i read the daily mail yesterday it had a very intersting article on the real truth behind 9/11 there is also a video that can be seen on you tube its called loose change.

thanx

the yanks are obviously gonna try to implicate the iranians in any way possible to justify another murderous assault on their most feared adversary…

the bushite lust for war on iran is uncontrollable…the usa has a history of butchering iranian governments they dont like…..

the yanks (and us if the cowardly blairites stay in power) are desperate to attack the persians…

the same dimwitted allies have made iran the major power in the middle east by defeating their greatest foe, saddams iraq…

its likely that iran will whup usa/israel in any upcoming war…

if 150,000 yanks cant conquer iraq, they have no chance in crushing iran…

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Never understood why the English think "Yank" is perjorative...

Frankly it's entirely possible that if we wait for the next Iranian election the problem will sort itself out. The mayor of Tehran is much more popular than Ahmadinejad and Iranians appear to be sick of what he is doing internationally.

As for Iraq, it's not debateable [b]if[/b] they are operating in Iraq, it's common knowledge at this point that they are. The telegraph reported it [url= back in 2003[/url], and just recently the army has been capturing and killing Iranian [i][url= officers[/url][/i] in Iraq.

Who can blame them? The opportunity is golden from a strategic standpoint. All they really need to do is keep up sectarian unrest to keep Americans embroiled in an Iraq fight that way Iran can continue with its nuclear program unabated. "Fight them abroad so you don't have to fight them at one." lol kind of an interesting twist on that American strategy.

They could come out even more on top if America withdraws and they turn Iraq into a shia dominated protectorate - it increases their zone of infuence.

Ultimately I think the direct route is the easiest solution. The President got ride of the catch and release policy we had before, whereby any Iranian nationals caught fighting against the United States in Iraq were simply handed back to Iran. Now it's as simple as [url= or capture[/url], which has a lovely deterrant effect.

I think this will iron out nicely, Iran will back off and the US will continue operations against the sunni insurgency, no civil wars.

As for the nuclear situation, if Iran wants the bomb I really don't care at this point, let Israel sort them out, they have bigger bombs and fewer scruples. I can't even imagine the humanitarian nightmare, but the arab nations and Iran have been going on for years now about how "you reap what you sew" with regards to 9.11, and that's terribly ironic considering the nightmares they have been sewing for themselves these last 60 some odd years.

I'm no longer feeling inclined to prevent the blood bath that they will all "reap," I don't look forward to it but it's clear there is nothing the rest of the World can do to prevent it. It'll definitely solve our Iraq problem since there... won't be an Iraq, or Iran, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia. It'll all just be a nice nuclear shelled out wasteland.

I just hope when they all democratically elect to anhilate themselves they vaporize Jerusalem. Completely. The Temple Mount, Sepulchre, Al Aqsa - the whole show. That way there won't be anything left to fight over.

Maybe we'll turn the levantine crater into a lake. Ducks, sailboats, a few olive trees just for some native appeal. - Kind of a silver lining.

Also, to correct you our most [i][b]feared[/b][/i] adversary is China. Weighing in at a military of 2.1 million, medium to high techological advancement, a sizeable nuclear power and a crippling grip on the US economy China takes the cake.

They call us "Paper dragon"

Kind of like a cute little term of endearment...

Iran is our most peculiar adversary. They seem to be collectively bipolar, have some kind of holocaust-fetish, and we can't make up our minds if we should consider them arabs or something else.

France is our most harmless adversary. They do annoying things to us politically but usually back off when we pay them.

Russia is our most pathetic adversary, kinda weird to see such a huge powerhouse reduced to that.

Iran as an adversary is peculiar as you have mentioned. Alot to lose, nothing to gain.

Blast them to smithereens and the US does not gain too much. Get nito a long term confrontation, Oil becomes a weapon that can hurt (but not too much).

I think it is more historical than anything. Just like Cuba and the US will never be too close.

I do not think many in the US actually want a war, including most of the administration. But I still feel it in inevitable.

Sometimes trying to avoid war will lead to it. Sometimes being openly hostile will.

Here both seem to go down the same road.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Quote:
[b]Iran 'does not fear attack by US'[/b]

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country does not fear the US military and that any attack would be "severely punished".

Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments in a rare US television interview on Monday.

He was speaking after US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias in Iraq who were attacking the US military.

In the interview with ABC Television in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad was asked if he feared a US military attack.

"Fear? Why should we be afraid?" he asked.

Mr Ahmadinejad said he thought the possibility of such an attack was "very low".

[url]

"Don Karnage" wrote:
Never understood why the English think "Yank" is perjorative....

we dont...its just a nickname, same as us calling the australians "aussies"...

ur both our colonial subjects, but we luv you all the same...no lie... Wink

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Frankly it's entirely possible that if we wait for the next Iranian election the problem will sort itself out. The mayor of Tehran is much more popular than Ahmadinejad and Iranians appear to be sick of what he is doing internationally........

either that or you continue to sell us the story that they are the new evil empire and beg/bribe us into attacking em with nukes...great policy...bound to work...

"Don Karnage" wrote:

As for Iraq, it's not debateable [b]if[/b] they are operating in Iraq, it's common knowledge at this point that they are. The telegraph reported it [url= back in 2003[/url], and just recently the army has been capturing and killing Iranian [i][url= officers[/url][/i] in Iraq.........

actually it is debatable...

is it the iranian gov that is fueling the secterian fighting in iraq?

certainly the neo cons want us to believe so but you know, as well as i, that they are liars/deluded...

even the son of a bush currently misruling usa has wobbled....

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Who can blame them? The opportunity is golden from a strategic standpoint. All they really need to do is keep up sectarian unrest to keep Americans embroiled in an Iraq fight that way Iran can continue with its nuclear program unabated. "Fight them abroad so you don't have to fight them at one." lol kind of an interesting twist on that American strategy..........

yep...bush has failed...in fact he has made things worse...

i hope barack obama wins for the next usa election for the worlds sake....

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Ultimately I think the direct route is the easiest solution. The President got ride of the catch and release policy we had before, whereby any Iranian nationals caught fighting against the United States in Iraq were simply handed back to Iran. Now it's as simple as [url= or capture[/url], which has a lovely deterrant effect...........

yep, u send over more poor young black/latino men and you'll def crush those arabs....

"Don Karnage" wrote:

I think this will iron out nicely, Iran will back off and the US will continue operations against the sunni insurgency, no civil wars............

in george bush's dreams....

"Don Karnage" wrote:

As for the nuclear situation, if Iran wants the bomb I really don't care at this point, let Israel sort them out, they have bigger bombs and fewer scruples. I can't even imagine the humanitarian nightmare, but the arab nations and Iran have been going on for years now about how "you reap what you sew" with regards to 9.11, and that's terribly ironic considering the nightmares they have been sewing for themselves these last 60 some odd years.

I'm no longer feeling inclined to prevent the blood bath that they will all "reap," I don't look forward to it but it's clear there is nothing the rest of the World can do to prevent it. It'll definitely solve our Iraq problem since there... won't be an Iraq, or Iran, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia. It'll all just be a nice nuclear shelled out wasteland.

I just hope when they all democratically elect to anhilate themselves they vaporize Jerusalem. Completely. The Temple Mount, Sepulchre, Al Aqsa - the whole show. That way there won't be anything left to fight over............

in george bush's wet dreams...

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
either that or you continue to sell us the story that they are the new evil empire and beg/bribe us into attacking em with nukes...great policy...bound to work...

Hi George,

Even the UN agrees with us in Iran, in fact thusfar they are the only group to actually attempt to punish Iran for its nuclear program. We can't pull a Neville Chamberlain and just ignore the problem for fear of upsetting people when our citizens lives may be at stake. That's the nature of national security.

"Don Karnage" wrote:

As for Iraq, it's not debateable [b]if[/b] they are operating in Iraq, it's common knowledge at this point that they are. The telegraph reported it [url= back in 2003[/url], and just recently the army has been capturing and killing Iranian [i][url= officers[/url][/i] in Iraq.........

Quote:
actually it is debatable...

is it the iranian gov that is fueling the secterian fighting in iraq?

certainly the neo cons want us to believe so but you know, as well as i, that they are liars/deluded...

even the son of a bush currently misruling usa has wobbled....

You didn't comment on my London Times article discussing Iranian agents in Iraq...

Quote:
yep...bush has failed...in fact he has made things worse...

i hope barack obama wins for the next usa election for the worlds sake....

I like Barack Obama... I think "for the worlds sake" is going a bit overboard.

Quote:
yep, u send over more poor young black/latino men and you'll def crush those arabs....

And poor whites... and rich whites and rich latinos and rich blacks. I could be sent over and I'm about as far from your description as it gets. I'm a white military officer serving along side some of the best and brightest whites blacks and latinos in the nation. And someday when were all onto bigger and better things we're still going to to help each other out and hold onto our friendships.

Hell I'm still friends with all the guys I used to fly with the first time around.

Don't turn Americas greatest strength (our diversity) into something ugly.

Quote:
in george bush's dreams....

So you prefer the civil war and insurgency blowing things up daily, to a stable Iraqi democracy?

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Hi George,

hello dave, hope you and yours are well….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Even the UN agrees with us in Iran, in fact thusfar they are the only group to actually attempt to punish Iran for its nuclear program. We can't pull a Neville Chamberlain and just ignore the problem for fear of upsetting people when our citizens lives may be at stake. That's the nature of national security

im not trying to promote the munich agreement….

however, the usa has to swallow its pride and talk to iran. you spoke about pride being the main reason for the muslim focus on Palestine, rather than on the many other outrages against humanity evident in the muslim world, and i agree with u on that. but, having said that, it is US pride that stands in the way of a peaceful settlement in the iraq that we have destroyed in the last 4 yrs.

another war is NOT justified, it is not the solution, so the bitter, desperate rhetoric of the bushites can only worsen the situation. their lust for war on iran is extraordinary given the debacle in iraq, the very conflict that has given iran the status of top dog in the middle east…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

You didn't comment on my London Times article discussing Iranian agents in Iraq.

of course iranian agents are operating in iraq, however this does not mean that the iranian gov has overstepped the mark to the extent that the only way to deal with them is for the usa, or its proxy israel, to attack them with nuclear weapons. why wouldn’t the iranians want to protect and strengthen the position of the shia in iran? they remember only too well the then pro-usa saddams cruelty to the shia, its war on iran, and the usa’s role in overthrowing of iranian president mohammad mosaddeq and its support for the brutal shah….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

iI like Barack Obama... I think "for the worlds sake" is going a bit overboard.

The bushites hv no credibility…I don’t wanna see more young men send to die, or to kill even poorer arabs or persians, on the whim of a discreditied, corrupt, incompetent bunch of fanatics in the white house, or a sycophantic, cowardly, traitorous so called “labour” gov in the uk…

Ok, its prob idealistic to think that barrack obamas gonna make a huge difference, but allow me my JFK moment…US policies affect the entire world so I don’t think its an exaggeration…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

And poor whites... and rich whites and rich latinos and rich blacks. I could be sent over and I'm about as far from your description as it gets. I'm a white military officer serving along side some of the best and brightest whites blacks and latinos in the nation. And someday when were all onto bigger and better things we're still going to to help each other out and hold onto our friendships.

Hell I'm still friends with all the guys I used to fly with the first time around.

Don't turn Americas greatest strength (our diversity) into something ugly.

Ok, maybe a cheap shot…i admire the diversity of the usa…but it has to be said that those most likely to die in the us, and the uk, army are those from the poorest sections of society, those who have the least to gain from war, and the most to lose, their LIVES…the us/uk soldiers sent on a fools errand to iraq are cannon fodder, they die in the war, they don’t get contracts to make money from re-building afterwards…they don’t get cheap labour for their companies, they ARE cheap labour….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

So you prefer the civil war and insurgency blowing things up daily, to a stable Iraqi democracy?

obviously not…however its deluded nonsense to claim that things will “iron out nicely” if the bushites remain so determined to stick to a policy that has so clearly failed, a policy that believes that war is the first answer and not the last…

the bush gov are manipulating intelligence “evidence” to trick us into another folly in the middle wast..another PACK OF LIES….

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Quote:
[size=18]US 'Iran attack plans' revealed[/size]

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

[b]Two triggers[/b]

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

[b]Deadline[/b]

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

[url= News[/url]

I would be more surprised if there were no contingencies. Even if war not remote possibility, I would still expect contingencies.

But in this situation this just makes the job of the armchair critic more interesting.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Mecca Da Lyrical Berretta" wrote:
apparantly King Faisal of Saudi Arabia cut off oil supplies 2 the US. US wre thinking bout invading Saudi Arabia so they could gt the oil, then King Faisal gt assainated or died and I guess the Saudis started gving US oil again.

It's also in [url= revival magazine[/url] (issue 6), page 11.
Quote:
King Faisal of Saudi Arabia once stopped oil supplies to the West for its support of Israel. But the US drew up plans to invade Saudi Arabia and secure the oilfields by force if that happened again. King Faisal was assassinated a year after he cut-off the oil.

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:

hello dave, hope you and yours are well….

Maranatha, Happy Ash Wednesday St. George;

Splendid! Thanks, we're all quite well and quite baptized (and quite warm), it's spectacular! I was harrassing my father in law this morning about "Surprise!" ... pointing out all the various different milestones he can enjoy, lol I pointed out that if they have another girl like Annette then he is going to have to play basketball with her in his early 60s! PTA meeting for them when they are in 4th grade and he is collecting AARP benefits hahhaha!!!

All those patronizing discussions about parenthood we've had are coming right back at him!

How's stuff there?? You haven't mentioned the polish girl in a little while...

Quote:
im not trying to promote the munich agreement….

From what you've said [i]so far[/i] I'm not sure whether the sum effect of what you have been saying [i]isn't[/i] a munich agreement.

What I am not sure how to interpret is your various deliberately discouraging statements about the information gathered thusfar concerning Iran's activities in Iraq, illegal nuclear program, alleged nuclear weapon program. Generally it doesn't seem like you are focusing on the information but rather who it is coming from, "this is propaganda," rather than giving your thoughts on that Telegraph article I posted earlier for example, without actually evaluating the information.

I could see this as just overly enthusiastic doubt concerning US intelligence in wake of the Iraq War, which is certainly justifiable however not to the degree you have taken it. I could also see this as you deliberately choosing not to listen to "scary stuff" about Iran because you feel the conclusion of such an inquiry would lead to an authorization for war (during the Iraq war), an outcome you want to avoid.

I don't know what myriad of signals you are sending me that have come together to give me the impression that you are driven by the latter desire but that is what I think - thus the Neville Chamberlain comparison. Neville Chamberlain felt another World War was an "impossible" outcome, something that he personally could not allow to happen and was so awful it outweighed any temporary inconvenience or evil that the Nazis insisted upon. I think you are of the impression that the Iraq War is such a terrible policy outcome that whatever negative effect allowing Iran "an inch" would bring simply does not justify a similar war. - Thus your aversion to even considering information that suggests a military course of action, just like Neville Chamberlain. And thus the reliance on excuses to ignore the negative information, just as Neville Chamberlain did.

It seems to me you have fallen into the same trap Chamberlain did, in assuming that people are fully responsible for whatever course of action in the end occurs, rather than accepting the majority of the outcome is the result of the situation itself, not the decisions that are effected as a result of the circumstances of the situation. (Id est war was inevitable with Germany, regardless of our desire to ignore it and put it off, and it may too be inevitable with Iran regardless of our desire to ignore it or put it off). In making that same mistake I think both of you are sacrificing the safety of your nation.

To put this shortly, if you take the use of War off the table completely [i]as one of many[/i] possible solutions you are trapping yourself, and your entire investigation of the circumstances and even your ultimate course of action are biased to a certain perspective which may even betray the reality of the situation and the prudent course of action - to your own detriment.

Now unless I misunderstand you, I have to say I simply do not subscribe to that particular world view, I think it died with the Munich Peace accords. We learned that "Peace in our Time" is something that must be enforced iwth just laws and not merely dreamt about or talked of in very pithy tones, [b]and[/b] perversly enough [i]enforcing peace[/i] sometimes means going to war against those who do not respect the laws established to promote a peaceful world.

Not even considering the possibility of enforcing these laws (unless they are unjust), and far worse not even considering any possible observation which may lead a responsible person to consider using war as a resulotion strikes me as something no less imprudent than those who restrict their world view to war-only, and restrict their information to only that information which would lead a prudent person to consider war as a solution.

Quote:
however, the usa has to swallow its pride and talk to iran. you spoke about pride being the main reason for the muslim focus on Palestine, rather than on the many other outrages against humanity evident in the muslim world, and i agree with u on that. but, having said that, it is US pride that stands in the way of a peaceful settlement in the iraq that we have destroyed in the last 4 yrs.

The US does have diplomatic relations with Iran, through Switzerland. We are both happy with this arrangement, reestablishing an embassy or mission is a different (and unrelated) matter - we would not risk our citizens living on Iranian soil once again, ignoring historic precedent with this Iranian government would be a tremendous miscalculation.

That said, there is nothing about our relationship through Switzerland that is not fit to handle discussions over Iraq, Iran's illegal nuclear program, and their alleged weapons program.

I'm not sure what aspect of our pride must be set aside (if you are referring to us not taking a military exercise off the table I refer you to my concluding comments from above), or what additional steps for better communication the United States needs to take. We've participated in the European package, in the UN package, in the UN dialogues and even with the Russians [b]but[/b] Iran has not budged. The UN is simply out of solutions, they've offered trade proposals from various member nations, to relax the NPT for Iran to have Nuclear Power - but not weapons, with the added safety of UN inspectors, and they've given deadlines and extended them then ultimately accepted Iran's deadlines, and then Iran's extended deadlines.

To no avail.

Europe offered the absolute best economic package to Iran, including nearly normalized trade relations with almost all of Europe, reopened (but limited) trade relations with the United States, and giving legal sanction to the deal between Russia and Iran to provide enriched non-weapons grade Uranium with Iran for their "power stations," again built upon the stipulation that we simply send in investigators to see everything is for civilian use only.

No deal.

Finally not even the Russians - who are ultimately providing the enriched uranium - were able to send in investigators.

No deal.

Why won't Iran allow investigators? Why won't Iran answer questions about some of their less civilian-power oriented machinery? Why won't Iran answer for Dr. Khan's testimony that he sold them nuclear weapons information? Why won't Iran accept any deal that doesn't involve taking them at their word with absolutely investigation from the international community - ie the IAEA?

Exactly which other incentives or political options has the US ignored? At what point do we exhaust the limit of offering reasonable incentives and cross into the realm of Chamberlain appeasement? And at what point in your model - which seems to eliminate a military solution - are you simply out of solutions?

What do you do then?

What does it say that America has taken all of these incentive based discussions, political alternatives and multinational routes and has still not committed to war?

Quote:
[b]another war is NOT justified, it is not the solution,[/b] [u][b][size=18]so[/size][/b][/u] the bitter, desperate rhetoric of the bushites can only worsen the situation. their lust for war on iran is extraordinary given the debacle in iraq, the very conflict that has given iran the status of top dog in the middle east…

This is exactly why I see Chaimberlain appeasement in your words. You are simply averse to even the mere suggestion a military option may be the final prudent course of action... it's evaluating the situation based on a preset solution which you are going to have to enforce if it goes against the natural course of events. We might be being led to war, regardless of whether or not we like it... at this point all options are on the table as far as the US is concerned because we simply cannot fortell the future.

This isn't situational analysis, this is some kind of idealism which we know from historic precedent is deadly. The US cannot, and will not, risk reducing Washinton to rubble under Iranian attacks as punishment for being internationally naive as London was punished for the naivetee of Chamberlain.

I agree with you that there is warmongering - and it is as dangerous to us as appeasement - for no other reason than it restricts our investigation to a certain point of view, which may in the end risk turning our backs to the correct course of action. In the end I see no difference from a strategic standpoint between what you are advocating and what warmongers advocate. International politics is a place for realism, not idealistic missions - we learned this from Wilson, Chaimberlain, Johnson and now Bush.

Quote:
of course iranian agents are operating in iraq, however this does not mean that the iranian gov has overstepped the mark to the extent that the only way to deal with them is for the usa, or its proxy israel, to attack them with nuclear weapons. why wouldn’t the iranians want to protect and strengthen the position of the shia in iran? they remember only too well the then pro-usa saddams cruelty to the shia, its war on iran, and the usa’s role in overthrowing of iranian president mohammad mosaddeq and its support for the brutal shah….

I understand why Iran would want to go into Iraq... I have absolutely no idea why you are presenting this in a manner that you feel justifies not acting in the face of Iranian aggression. So they want to increase their standing in Iraq and they don't like us because we supported the British Shah... and? How is that an argument for America to not consider Iran an enemy? They seem to think we are, clearly, and they are willing to put troops into the field to prove their point.

Responsible policy means taking the measures necessary to secure our troops, our allies, and our interests in that part of the world. That means eliminating Iranian agents in Iraq - this isn't a Nacht und Nebbels decree, it's responsible policy.

The only question I have concerning this point is, if the Iranians have no hangups using a military solution for their America problem, isn't that even more reason for America to not only keep its military solution on the table - but perhaps even to give it greater consideration?

Quote:
The bushites hv no credibility…I don’t wanna see more young men send to die, or to kill even poorer arabs or persians, on the whim of a discreditied, corrupt, incompetent bunch of fanatics in the white house, or a sycophantic, cowardly, traitorous so called “labour” gov in the uk…

Ok, its prob idealistic to think that barrack obamas gonna make a huge difference, but allow me my JFK moment…US policies affect the entire world so I don’t think its an exaggeration…

Compare JFK and Bush and you do not see much difference. JFK brought us into Vietnam and Cuba for idealism, just as Bush brought us into Iraq for idealism (eventually it was "Democracy") - and all three were discredited military disasters. The Bay of Pigs was an unprovoked attack on Cuba (no missile crises yet), and Vietnam did nothing to America.

These are imprudent wars - different in intent than the clear provocations which began WW2, Iraq I, or possible action in Iran which are explicitly about protecting American interests or the security of the heartland itself.

As for US policies affecting the entire world, yes, they do. But so do Iranian policies, Chinese policies, Russian policies and British policies -that is a consequence of globalization and the modern world, simple a new variable in the playground we operating in. We should consider it in our calculations but it should never be a stumbling block in forgetting a nations first security responsibility is to itself - that is the foundation of foreign policy and national security.

Quote:
Ok, maybe a cheap shot…i admire the diversity of the usa…but it has to be said that those most likely to die in the us, and the uk, army are those from the poorest sections of society, those who have the least to gain from war, and the most to lose, their LIVES…the us/uk soldiers sent on a fools errand to iraq are cannon fodder, they die in the war, they don’t get contracts to make money from re-building afterwards…they don’t get cheap labour for their companies, they ARE cheap labour….

Again not true, I've lost cousins in Iraq and Afghanistan and my family is one of the largest banking clans in the world. I've got college mates that are serving as enlisted men in the marine corps and we attended an ivy league school. Frankly my job (as soon as I finish) is one of the most dangerous, especially if I'm posted. Are you going to get rich in the infantry? No. Are there benefits? Yes. The GI bill covers post high school education costs for all military positions, enlisted and commissioned, VA hospitals are essentially free medical care for the rest of your life and are for all military positions enlisted and otherwise. That does attract people who cannot afford high education or medical coverage - but state welfare and school scholarships offer far better medical coverage and scholastic benefit than the military does - much easier to get too.

The idea that there is some kind of institutionalized "trap" designed to make people fail in the real world and herd them toward the military via its benefits system is just a myth concocted by peaceniks. Blue blood spills just as easily and just as often as red, the only kind of blood the military distinguishes is brave blood and a cowards.

Quote:
obviously not…however its deluded nonsense to claim that things will “iron out nicely” if the bushites remain so determined to stick to a policy that has so clearly failed, a policy that believes that war is the first answer and not the last…

Nothing you've said to me demonstrates that the Bush policy in Iran is war first. In fact at present the Bush admin has lead us through successive (each failing) political solutions, and has attached the US agenda to the political solutions of other nations. It's no secret war is a possible outcome, that's obviously intentional since we are trying to communicate to Iran just how seriously we would take such a threat.

At present the only Iranian blood shed has been on the sands of Iraq where they are provoking civil war and attacking american soldiers - localized action against these agents is justified.

Quote:
the bush gov are manipulating intelligence “evidence” to trick us into another folly in the middle wast..another PACK OF LIES….

This is what I was talking about above, you're relying on attacking the source so that you don't have to consider the negatives which could lead to a decision you believe is "not justified, not the solution" from the get go. The sum effect of your position is in my mind no different than Neville Chamberlain. That kind of thinking failed us, dramatically, and it's time for those who have not yet learned this lesson to realize that the proper use of force can bring about a just peace through law - or failing that, then at least the security of our citizens.

The only thing that matters in international politics is responsible decision making, not altruistic idealism - there is no clearer example of this than Emperor Carl of Austria who was beatified by Pope Benedict for his "Christian decisions" but historically he will be remembered for his short reign, the fall of his house, and the fall of his citizens to the grasp of the Nazis.

come on and be brave!

Pick a date.

When are the next presidential elections in Iran?

It don't matter who is the president on the US side, nor their policy.

When you are on a rollercoaster, you have ride it out.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Admin" wrote:
come on and be brave!

Pick a date.

When are the next presidential elections in Iran?

It don't matter who is the president on the US side, nor their policy.

When you are on a rollercoaster, you have ride it out.

I think they have an election in 2008 or 2010. Frankly I think that will decide the issue - you're right, this really isn't about what happens in the US.

[url= seizes 15 Royal Navy personnel[/url] | [url=mms://telegraph.wmod.llnwd.net/a689/o1/TEL_NAVY_LAMBERT_23.wmv]Video[/url]

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

The MoD says they weren't.

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

According to my prediction in the OP, 4 days to go...

:twisted:

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:
The MoD says they weren't.

since when do we believe what the MoD tell us?

Back in BLACK

I think war on Iran is coming. America has been raising tentions for past 3 years on the nuclear issue.
When there is war, it is without doubt that Iran will come out victorious.
Allah has promised believers that He would not let them be defeated. This means Amercia is going to lose the war against Iran. Allah's words cannot be false. Allah does what He says.

If America's destiny is a humiliating defeat, then it will start a fight with Iran.

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

malik:
OR, america comes to its senses, and no-one dies. ok so it isn't likely that the american gov will come to its senses (it's debateable if it even has any sense :P) but i'd like to think that not everything has to end in bloodshed... :?

and admin, your deadline's over. Smile

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

I lose. Cray 2

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

I think America will go to war with Iran this year. They won't come to their senses. Iran will have to bring these stupid arrogant cowboys to their senses. America has a habit of policing the world. It tries to dominite other people. But thanks to Allah, it keeps getting its face smashed. Vietnam was the worst nightmare until Iraqis did a better job then Vietnamese in teaching them a lesson.
America knows it cannot win in Iraq. Bush, the Satan, is desperate to exit the land of Imam Ali in an honourable way. There is no way to save face except beg the Believers for help. God will not have mercy on Americans unless Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani prays for them.

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

you do realise your view is a little simplistic?

There are around 300 million Americans.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

I'm surprised there are still neo-pacifists out there that pretend the world is acting irresponsibly in the face of Iranian aggression. Iran needs to return the British soldiers they illegally removed from Iraqi waters, stop sending foreign fighters into Iraq, and subject their illegal nuclear program to UN scrutiny. If they don't their problems with [i]the international community[/i] will continue to exacerbate.

In the past few months we've gone from the United States "not taking a military solution off the table," and all of the World including our closest allies attempting to broker a deal between us and Iran - to the present state: America promising conflict, Britain threatening conflict, Russia and China backing away from their previous negotiations and instead embracing sanctions, and the UN making demands.

Not to mention with the destabilizing presence of Iran's terrorist tentacles stretching into Iraq, Lebanon and Israel, resulting in all kinds of daily military conflicts, it's no wonder they are beginning to feel claustrophobic.

There is a rather simple solution behind all the political rhetoric coming from Tehran - an election. Ahmadinejad faces re-election in 2009 (I think) and is extremely unpopular. Conversely, the equally nationalistic but far more sophisticated mayor of Tehran Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf appears to be an early front runner, polling ahead of Ahmadinejad.

This is clear from the 2006 Assembly of Experts elections, in which Ahmadinejad's supporters faced a defeat analogous to the United States midterm elections - incidentally both are considered referendums on their leader’s international policies. Interestingly enough the moderates who won out over Ahmadinejad's supporters supported international platforms similar to Ghalibaf's proposals in 2005.

The religious leaders do not seem to be pleased with Ahmadinejad either, Ayatollah Khamenei's newspaper wrote a warning to Ahmadinejad in 2006:

"[i]Our advice to the president is to speak about the nuclear issue only during important national occasions, [b]stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate more on the daily needs of the people, those who voted for you on your promises[/b][/i]"

Iranians are not 100% in love with his obsession with international posturing, at the expense of Iran's fragile domestic situation.

I doubt there will be armed conflict between the United States and Iran - unless Britain goes to war with Iran over this new hostage situation (they seem to have a penchant for this don't they?), then it is essentially assured.

All the same I think it's fairly obvious that Iran will be completely isolated internationally by the end of the 2008 which will be the end of Ahmadinejad's political career. Persians are proud people; they want to be an international powerhouse – not an international pariah.

Brother Admin. Islam is a simple religion and Allah's laws are also simple.

There were also 300 million Americans in 2003. Look at them now how they are voting to pull out their super army. America could not manage to control their stupid occupation in Iraq. Iraqis people have taught Americans are lesson which they will not forget for a long time. US Congress voted twice last week to retreat from Iraq in 2008. They have many time now admitted that there is no clear victory in Iraq. Poll show American public believes US military has lost the war in Iraq. They voted in demorates because republicans have brought shame on America after defeat in Iraq.
Iraqis are only about 20 million people. American are 300 million. Allah says believers always win even if they are few in numbers because God is on their side. Allah is on the side of his believers, then no American army can defeat you.

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Having upto 600,000 people killed is not what I call a win. (yes, that was one report. The actual figure could be much lower, or much higher.)

having national infrastructure demolished both by invaders and insurgents is not a win.

Sectarian infighting is not a win.

Not knowing wether you will be murdered shopping for groceries. or going to pray opr to work is not a win.

Not saying the invaders have won either, as there was a bigger puicture there, but it is not a win for ordinary Iraqis by any count.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Admin" wrote:
Having upto 600,000 people killed is not what I call a win. (yes, that was one report. The actual figure could be much lower, or much higher.)

having national infrastructure demolished both by invaders and insurgents is not a win.

Sectarian infighting is not a win.

Not knowing wether you will be murdered shopping for groceries. or going to pray opr to work is not a win.

Not saying the invaders have won either, as there was a bigger puicture there, but it is not a win for ordinary Iraqis by any count.

We won the war, the only objective we haven't met is making the Iraqi's like each other.

Increasingly Americans are becomming aware of the fact that this is a new, civil war, that we really cannot do anything about, ergo we should leave.

Saddam and his Baathists are gone, they have a new government and army, now it's up to them.

It was never about the war, which the American coalition would have won anyway.

it was about the bigger picture which has not been established.

Even againstr Iran, America will probably trounce them in any conflict if there was one, but the bigger picture matters.

Would it matter if that happened? would they be able to have a government that found them acceptable? Would be safer or more dangerous for the average American? would it be cheaper or more expensive?

Getting rid of the baathists was a mistake. Everyone who was anyone was baathist, if they wanted to be or not. It created a power vacuum, which eventually led to some of the violence.

Najaf could have been pacified without the violence. Afterall the violence started after street protesters protesting FOR security were shot down. A year later Americans were lynched from the streets.

Yes, America won the war, but they never got what the supporters really wanted.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Had Americans won the war, they would not be begging for talks with Iran to help out in Iraq.

America's policy is never to talk to Iran, yet it held talks about Iraq.
American is also talking to insurgents who have killed thousands of its troops. America talking to terrorists is a sign of humiliation.
US claims it does not talk to terrorists. But read this:

Signs is defeat.

America has killed thousands of Iraqis hoping they would give in. Iraqis have proven to be too tough for US to defeat. Now America forces are set to withdraw in disgrace. I can see that as in after Vietnam there will be no home coming celebration in Washington. There will be no victory parades in America. Allah will not allow America to come out smiling out of land of Imam Ali.

Satan Bush is being disgraced in his own country. They are sick of him after he lost Iraq war.

Ya Ali Madad.

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Pages