Is the attack on Iran Inevitable?

[InToTheRain]

Peace fellow forum viewers and know that your being able to read this is a luxury many do not have in this war torn world.

We all know the contingency plans for the war in Iraq where in place Months befor the deadlines or conclusions for the weapon inspectors reports where made. Indeed I vividly remember the warships making their way towards Iraq while inspections where half done.

Have a read of these articles then make up your mind, Is the war in Iran Inevitable?

tensions over Iran's nuclear plans

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

[Woodrow]

I do not think war with Iran is inevitable. It can be avoided and I do not think there is any big push for war. I think the build up in the Mediterranean is no more then to reassure Israel that they have no need to make a preemptive strike against Iran.

Iran is an uncooperative US allie without their realizing it. Iran can be seen as a buffer zone that keeps the Arab nations from becoming fully united. They are the largest non-Arab nation in the mideast and the location prevents physical unity of the Arab nations. It is very much to US benefit for Iran to have strength in the region.

I think people forget the many times Iran has either gone to war with or threatened war with it's Arab neighbors. In spite of all of it's anti-American noises I think Iran feels it needs to have Western allies to keep from being swallowed up by the Arab countries and for that reason I do not think they will push very hard to risk actual war with Israel. I see them as making a lot of noise to avoid the appearance of being pro-West.

My fear is that Israel will get too scared and take the first action. Even then if Israel were to make a strike at Iran, as long as it is clearly seen Israel is the aggressor, the US will keep out of the fray.

Plus Iran in spite of it's oil reserves is loosing oil income very rapidly. It can not get the oil wells into full production and it does need the cooperation of the big 7 oil companies if it is ever going to have oil income again. Iran need the oil wells in Iraq and it also need a pipline and sea port through Iraq if it is going to sell oil. Irans own oil wells need a full work over to even have a chance of producing oil again. the low cost surface oil is long gone. all that remains is the deep oil that is expensive to get out of the ground. I doubt if any western investors will even consider any major investment in Iranian oil at this time.

Iran also has strong desires to get into Iraq and right now it has the biggest opportunity it ever had for a full take over of Iraq. As soon as the foreign armies get out of Iraq it is inevitable that Iraq will be swallowed up by Iran. At the moment I do not think the Western world will come to the aid of Iraq when Iran finaly makes it's push. However, that attitude would change if Iran were to do anything to be seen as aggression against the West.

[InToTheRain]

Iran is an uncooperative US allie without their realizing it. Iran can be seen as a buffer zone that keeps the Arab nations from becoming fully united. They are the largest non-Arab nation in the mideast and the location prevents physical unity of the Arab nations. It is very much to US benefit for Iran to have strength in the region.

:sl:

Thats true. But this can also be see a good cause for war as taking over this Iran would give them a strategic advantage in the Mid-east since they are no co-operating. Recently they Bush&co group made a move to send more troops in Iraq and now we have contingency plans which detail to two strategies which they can implement should they go to war in Iran. (Mentioned in the articles)

Maybe they will go to war and make a reason up as they go along (as they did with Iraq...)

[Woodrow]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

One of the biggest fallacies the world seems to have is that America wants to physically occupy the Mid-Eastern countries. I doubt if you could find enough Americans that would consider living there, to even have a token colonization.

Oil although constantly being tossed up as a reason, is not the reason. The western world is getting less dependent on Mid eastern oil and it is now being seen as too expensive and the better goals are to utilize western reserves and develop alternative energy sources for oil. The oil wealth of the mid east is in it's decline. The peak production years are in the past. Each year the cost of getting Mideastern oil out of the ground gets high and the cost of new wells in the area is no longer cost effective. About the only oil company you will see sticking with Mideastern oil will be Aramco. The Saudi national company.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Woodrow]

I suspect that the US will continue putting up a fuss in Iraq until the world see's an Iranian overtake of Iraq as a good thing. I think will put up a big front and than withdrw from Iraq allowing an Iranian take over and it will be seen as the will of the people and a defeat for the US and be acceptable to the world.

A strategic defeat can often be the biggest victory.

[InToTheRain]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

Well for me to think they see sense like you would be wishful thinking :D Allahu'Allom

[Woodrow]

I doubt if the world would accept a US backed takeover of Iraq by Iran. But, I believe that there would be much support if Iran can drive the US out of Iraq and come in as the liberators of Iraq.

That is the scenario I see being set up.

[Keltoi]

I doubt if the world would accept a US backed takeover of Iraq by Iran. But, I believe that there would be much support if Iran can drive the US out of Iraq and come in as the liberators of Iraq.

That is the scenario I see being set up.

Iran can't drive the U.S. out of Iraq. If they try they have committed an act of war, and they will be attacked. That would be their bad, not the fault of the U.S.

The only goal the U.S. has at this point is providing some sort of security blanket until the Iraqi government can get its act together. There is a timeline. If by 2009 the situation hasn't improven dramatically, the U.S. will remove most of its forces, leaving behind a few highly mobile attack forces to deal with certain situations the Iraq Army cannot handle.

[NoName55]

:sl:

'Removing Saddam strengthened Iran'

By Adla Massoud in New York
Political Islam expert Vali Nasr says the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq by the US during the invasion of the country in 2003 strengthened Iran's strategic viability and increased its regional popularity, especially among Iraq's Shia majority.



Nasr, author of the recently published book The Shia Revival, says despite its defiant rhetoric Iran is really seeking open and wide-ranging normalisation talks with Washington.
Professor of Middle East and South Asia Politics at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, Nasr was one several Middle East experts recently invited by George Bush, the US president, to brief him on internal Iraqi religious and political dynamics.
The following excerpts are from his interview to Aljazeera.net.
Aljazeera.net: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have voiced fears of a Shia revival in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Will a sectarian war engulf this "new" Middle East?
Vali Nasr: I think in individual countries they do fear the Shia revival because, unfortunately, Iraq, which is the very first stage of transfer of power from Sunnis to Shia, has gone very badly for a variety of reasons.
There was an enormous amount of blood shed in Iraqi politics for a very long time ... Iraq after 1991 became far more of a sectarian state than it was before, and the Americans mishandled many things - they weren't as prepared, which aggravated the situation.
As did also the influx of foreign fighters with their own agenda who may have thought the best way to get the Americans out of Iraq was to provoke a civil war by generating sectarian violence, hitting the shrines …
Secondly, the Shia want to avoid what happened in Iraq as do the Sunnis. So we are in a period of calm where the sectarian violence in Iraq is impacting all the debates about political transition, democracy, opening, and power sharing in the region.
Many have blamed Washington's policies for putting a defiant Iran in command of the Islamic street. Do you agree?
Yes and no. Saddam Hussein was definitely a bulwark against Iran because the Baathist government in Iraq was extremely anti-Iranian. It goes back to the days of the Shah ever since 1958.
But now Iran will definitely have a greater say in any Iraqi government that comes to power and is friendlier to Iran - especially if that government is a Shia government.
Secondly, the US has become bogged down in Iraq in a major way militarily and that takes away from its capability to contain Iran. And Iran knows that.

Part of Iran's power comes from the fact that it's very difficult to effectively contain it.
The public mood in America is not in favour of military activity abroad ... when Israel was not able to beat Hezbollah in a country of only 3.5 million people, when 130,000 US troops are bogged down in Iraq, obviously Iran feels it has a lot more room to manoeuvre and say "no" to the international community and to the nuclear issue.
Also, while the Iranian power was on the rise in the 1990s, nobody was watching, the economy was growing and the price of oil went up, it became very wealthy. It's a country of 70 million people.
There were many indicators that Iran was on the move during the [former Iranian President Mohammed] Khatami years. But the military edge of this, the more regional military edge of this, has only become evident now.
Iran's reading of the Arab street has been fairly good. At the time when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was in a stalemate, there was frustration and anger on the streets because of the fact that the peace process was not going anywhere.

"Iran is not anywhere close to having a nuclear bomb"

There was increasing difficulty between Palestinians and Israelis and then Iraq was producing so much unhappiness in the region. The Iranians did not focus on winning support among the palaces of the Arab world.
They went directly for the kind of things that make them very unpopular in the West and very popular on the Arab streets. So Iranian President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad started to attack Israel and question the Holocaust.
That has damaged Iran greatly in terms of its diplomacy with the West. But these pictures were sold on the streets in Damascus and Beirut before the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
The recent conflict in Lebanon has boosted Hezbollah's popularity to an unprecedented level and has given the mullahs - Hezbollah's backers - greater leverage to use at the international bargaining table. What does Tehran really want?
There are big things that Tehran wants and there are little things that Tehran wants. Iran wants to be recognised as a great power in the region. It wants to be like India is in South Asia. They basically want their position to be accepted and acknowledged. And the nuclear issue is part of that.
Iran wants to sit as an equal with the US and not be talked down to.
That should be an outcome of negotiations rather than a pre-condition for negotiations.
Also, you are right, as time has passed particularly after the Lebanon war, Iran feels increasingly more confident not that the overall goal has changed but that they would like to make any kind of negotiation from a position of strength.
I personally think they want to talk. That's why President Ahmadinejad gave an interview to CBS's Mike Wallace.
That's why in his interview he complained about the fact that President Bush did not answer his letter, it's the reason why again he called for a public debate with Bush a few days ago. And they do condescendingly say they want to talk but not the way in which the West wants to talk.
Why won't the US talk to them?
There are multiple reasons. This Bush administration began by putting Iran in the axis of evil. There are domestic considerations for engaging in talks, for both countries. You become ultimately a prisoner of your own rhetoric.
Secondly, the US believes that Iran is not serious. And the US has not really made up its mind yet about normalising relations with Iran. Or what that means. What the US wants is for Iran to stop doing specific things that the US is bothered by: namely their support for Hezbollah, support for terrorism, stop meddling in Iraq, and above all suspension of uranium enrichment and ending the nuclear programme in Iran.

"The cost of a military attack on Iran may be higher than it is a benefit"

But you know these are specific issues that the US would like Iran to deal with but it doesn't change the overall relation between the US and Iran.
The Iranians argue that if they were to do these things, they would still be in a position of difficulty. Once Ahmadinejad said in his own usual crude way, "If we gave up the nuclear programme, they will ask for human rights. If we gave up human rights they will ask for animal rights."
The US is refusing to engage directly with Iran, but will oil interests force US–Iran reconciliation?
I don't know if it will impose reconciliation but it is definitely a pressure factor. First of all, it's very difficult even if everybody at the UN agreed to punish Iran economically by imposing sanctions on Iran because ultimately those sanctions will include the oil sector.
If you include oil sanctions on Iran, then the price of oil is going to go up dramatically in such a way that will impact Western economies and Japan far more quickly than it will impact Iran itself. So oil is a limiting factor on the United Nations and the US.
Secondly, the easiest way in which Iran can always threaten any kind of counteraction is to attack oil tankers or to close off the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. And you know Iran does not even have to succeed there, just the threat of it will already send the prices up.
As a result, Iran has the ability to impact oil markets in ways that would constrict US policymaking. I don't think it's necessarily a path to reconciliation so much as it is a path to preventing further escalation of tension.
With Iran remaining defiant and ignoring a deadline set by the UN Security Council to suspend enrichment of uranium, do you think it's more likely Israel will attack Iran before the US does?
I don't think it would be too likely for two reasons. One, Iran is not anywhere close to having a nuclear bomb. In fact, the very fact that the IAEA just said Iran has been going rather slow on the uranium enrichment indicated that they are having technical problems.
Before Iran gets to a bomb it has to master many technologies, not just enrichment. They have to master bomb making and many other things before they can actually be a threat.
Many estimates, including US intelligence agencies, have put a time-frame anywhere from five to eight years away if all is well. So there is no imminent threat that would require a sort of military pre-emptive strike.
We might actually be at a time-frame right now - despite the hard talk from both sides - that the cost of a military attack on Iran may be higher than the benefit. In other words, an attack won't achieve much; it will only push the nuclear programme back. But the political, military and security cost of attacking Iran will be higher than the gains you are going to get.
What is the key to breaking up Iran's hegemony in the region?
There is no easy solution to this. In other words, there could always be a military solution, but I don't think there is a good military solution, and if there is a war, it's not going to even change the regime.
Like we saw in Lebanon, an attack will only stabilise the regime further, it will cause anger on the streets, and if Iran is attacked it won't have any incentives to play by the rules either. This will be tremendously destabilising to the Persian Gulf and to the whole region.

"Iran wants to sit as an equal with the US and not be talked down to"

Secondly, the countries in the region don't have the capability to contain Iran because they don't have the military capability to do so. Once upon a time Iraq and Iran balanced one another out. Saudi Arabia doesn't have that capability so they are going to look at the US to provide that military capability.
The question is, to what extent is the US committed to staying in the Persian Gulf. But ultimately I think for the Arab countries, particularly the Persian Gulf countries and the US, the best way is to find a way to engage Iran, give Iran an interest in stability and order in the region.
When you keep a power like Iran out in the cold, you give it an incentive to try to show that it exists and matters. And that is something the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are better positioned to do with support from the West than the West on its own.

Source: Aljazeera

[karim]

:sl:


i do not think that they should be a war in iran there is no justified reason


:w:

[Woodrow]

For many years the Shah regime of the Pahlavi family in Persia enjoyed many close ties with Washington. Perhaps the current regime would like to do the same?

Persia and Washington were very strange political buddies, but for some reason it served the Pahlavi family quite well.

I suspect there are some very interesting talks and negotiations taking place out of the view of the public.

In spite of all the talk and sabre rattling I think both countries have a need for each other and that need will most likely prevent war. The only situation I see that may disrupt the awkward stance is if a military confrontation takes place between Iran and Israel.

[libyanhero]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

One of the biggest fallacies the world seems to have is that America wants to physically occupy the Mid-Eastern countries. I doubt if you could find enough Americans that would consider living there, to even have a token colonization.

Oil although constantly being tossed up as a reason, is not the reason. The western world is getting less dependent on Mid eastern oil and it is now being seen as too expensive and the better goals are to utilize western reserves and develop alternative energy sources for oil. The oil wealth of the mid east is in it's decline. The peak production years are in the past. Each year the cost of getting Mideastern oil out of the ground gets high and the cost of new wells in the area is no longer cost effective. About the only oil company you will see sticking with Mideastern oil will be Aramco. The Saudi national company.

lol brother Oil is the reason if the arab world ever cuts off supply then they know among them are people who can die from poverty and all that

Oil isnt the only richness in the medditeranean there is plenty more and yah is not the Americans wanting that but the Jewish lobby is heading the American government to catastrophe if they dont wake up and realize that the Jewish lobby is one of the greatest most powerful in the american congress and its the congress that gives approval to these things

The reason behind it is not to go to war with iran first is to undermine and isolate iran by its arab neighbours then to see what reaction iran will take probably to back down and become friends with the US but its not Iran thats gonna get it, its Syria but noone is actually seeing it right now, Syria is the target for Israel and Iran wont help the arabs anymore in this case cause it will feel isolated and hurt which would cause more division.

its a long plot u need to dig through

[Woodrow]

Mideastern oil is a thing of the past. Oil from the mid east is on it's death bed. Even the shipping companies know that. There has not been a super tanker built in the past 20 years and as they sink or are retired as being too costly to upgrade they are not being replaced. Very soon there will be no way to transport oil out of the mid east even if production does continue a few more years.

Iran currently is reducing production about 200,000 barrels per day and more reduction is seen.

It is no secret the oil fields have passed their prime and with each new well needed it has to go deeper and get lower quality oil. I doubt if oil production will last over 5 more years in that region. It is getting more expensive to recover and the quality is getting poorer.

Perhaps there is an agenda for Washington to want to be in the region. But, it is not over oil. No sane investor would invest a nickel into any new oil ventures in the mid east.

i do agree there is a long plot behind the mideast, but each day it gets harder to see who are the key players. Iran does have ambition to become a major power.

[Count DeSheep]

"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."

No diplomat, except one from an anti-Iranian War country, would have revealed anything about that. Someone who opposes the war wouldn't have had any knowledge about U.S. plans for Iran. Therefore, I must conclude that the reporters are lying (what a shock!) or the diplomat was a fake/traitor/spy.

Me am thinking that an attack on Iran is inevitable and justifiable. I would elaborate, but I gotta go for now. >.<

[Woodrow]

One factor keeps being overlooked. The US can gain by having Iran as an allie. Iran can gain by having the US as an allie. A strong Iran will do much to eliminate any Arab strength in the mid east. It is in the best interest of the US that Iran become a strong presence in the area.

A strong powerful enemy can be an asset as long as actual combat can be avoided. Our politicians are corrupt, not stupid. (Well that does not apply to all of our politicians we do have some that are not corrupt and one noticible one that is stupid)

[wilberhum]

Iran and the US allies? I think not in this life time. One or the other will need a radical change.

[Woodrow]

Iran and the US allies? I think not in this life time. One or the other will need a radical change.

Don't rule that out. I've seen several radical shifts in Iran in my lifetime. It is past time for another shift. Maybe the Shahs family wants to go home?

[Count DeSheep]

One factor keeps being overlooked. The US can gain by having Iran as an allie. Iran can gain by having the US as an allie. A strong Iran will do much to eliminate any Arab strength in the mid east. It is in the best interest of the US that Iran become a strong presence in the area.

With people like Ahmadenijad in control, no alliance between the US and the THEM (XD) can be made. Although, I wouldn't be totally shocked if another leader came to power and did something.

A strong powerful enemy can be an asset as long as actual combat can be avoided. Our politicians are corrupt, not stupid.

America won't be able to do that! You must know that by now! Something will happen. Something always happens. If Iran as it is today makes an alliance with America, Iran will backstab the states the first chance it gets.

(Well that does not apply to all of our politicians we do have...one noticible one that is stupid)

Cheney. If he was smart, he woulda taken over long ago...XP

[cleo]

I offer a question? Where is the proof that justifies attacking Iran? The investigators did not find any proof..they said so..plainly.
Iran has offered to sit down with talks with the US, and only has been turned down.
Why should Iran be bullied into bending to the dictator, because he said so?
He, Bush lied and lied, to go into Iraq...don't forget that.
He does nothing but lie, isn't that a clue, for everyone to wake up?
He does not have permission to bomb Iran, from the Congress, but he is going to, and touch off the worst disaster the world has known.
We should all look at the whole picture, not one or two words..seek the truth.
And that is, the war cannot go on slaughtering people for the globalist agendas. The truth is, we are all dead if this goes on...think of that.

[Keltoi]

I offer a question? Where is the proof that justifies attacking Iran? The investigators did not find any proof..they said so..plainly.
Iran has offered to sit down with talks with the US, and only has been turned down.
Why should Iran be bullied into bending to the dictator, because he said so?
He, Bush lied and lied, to go into Iraq...don't forget that.
He does nothing but lie, isn't that a clue, for everyone to wake up?
He does not have permission to bomb Iran, from the Congress, but he is going to, and touch off the worst disaster the world has known.
We should all look at the whole picture, not one or two words..seek the truth.
And that is, the war cannot go on slaughtering people for the globalist agendas. The truth is, we are all dead if this goes on...think of that.

What investigators?

Bush isn't going to bomb Iran unless he has no other choice.

[NoName55]

America won't be able to do that! You must know that by now! Something will happen. Something always happens. If Iran as it is today makes an alliance with America, Iran will backstab the states the first chance it gets.

:sl:
Lying is part of their (Twelvers') religion.They have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad", slaughter and fitnah) during time of their (Twelvers') weakness, then they backstab Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")
:w:

[Woodrow]

:sl:
Lying is part of their religion.(They have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad", slaughter and mayhem) during time of weakness of Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")
:w:

Brother would you please quote the source you are using to describe Taqiah.

[Woodrow]

:sl:
Lying is part of their religion.(They have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad", slaughter and mayhem) during time of weakness of Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")
:w:

:w:

I just realised you are making reference specificaly to Iran and not to Islam. I apologize, my error.

[NoName55]

:w:

I just realised you are making reference specificaly to Iran and not to Islam. I apologize, my error.

:sl:
:D No problem, My Brother!

Thank you for being so gracious

Ma'asalaama
:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Bush isn't going to bomb Iran unless he has no other choice.

How can you have so much faith in Bush after all he has done?

I only agree that Iran won't be attacked because Bush doesn't have the politital pull he once did (he squandered it on his Iraq fiasco). If Bush had the whole USA still in the bloodthirsty uproar he had it in post 9/11 I'd have no doubt at all that Iran would be invaded and "justification" would be invented, just like in Iraq.

[Keltoi]

How can you have so much faith in Bush after all he has done?

I only agree that Iran won't be attacked because Bush doesn't have the politital pull he once did (he squandered it on his Iraq fiasco). If Bush had the whole USA still in the bloodthirsty uproar he had it in post 9/11 I'd have no doubt at all that Iran would be invaded and "justification" would be invented, just like in Iraq.

I'm sure the thinking in political circles in Washinton D.C. was that a democratic Iraq would embolden the pro-democracy elements in Iran and lead to regime change and reforms. Unfortunately for everyone things haven't gone as smoothly as some thought it would. I have to disagree with the "invasion" part of your post. There will be no invasion of Iran regardless of whether Bush wanted to go to war with them or not. Just an air campaign and probably some naval activity in the gulf. An invasion of Iran doesn't make sense...occupation doesn't make sense. If only those who planned the Iraq War would have realized the futility of occupying a country.

[Woodrow]

The price of occupying a country results in 2 prisoners. The country being occupied and the country doing the occupying. The occupier can never relax nor reduce his military strength in an occupied nation as the nation will constantly wage a war to escape from the occupation.

trying to occupy a country is like catching a lion bare handed. you can never let go without being destroyed.

[InToTheRain]

Bush isn't going to bomb Iran unless he has no other choice.

Do you think Bush had no other choice but to go to war with Iraq?

There are always choices. The choices a leader has will be based on their aims and objectives which I am skeptical about.

[Count DeSheep]

Do you think Bush had no other choice but to go to war with Iraq?

I do does. It was either that or go down in history as the man who let the murderers get away, the man who let the country fall apart. He also would have shown to the world that America was unprepared to respond to events like 9/11--not that his actions then much matter now, because of Hurricane Katrina. Iraq was linked with bin Laden, bin Laden with the attack. Bush knew what he had to do to show that he was a strong leader--although he hasn't handled anything as good since. He claimed Iraq had WMDs, or were making them, or both, then later said Iraq didn't have them after all. Then Mr. Former-Hussein-General steps up and says that Saddam did have WMDs after all. Or at least, that's what I heard...mighta been proved false later. But many people still believe them weapons are out there.

So anywho, it wasn't much of a choice Bush had: live or die.

[Count DeSheep]

:sl:
Lying is part of their (Twelvers') religion.They have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad", slaughter and fitnah) during time of their (Twelvers') weakness, then they backstab Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")
:w:

Eh? Say that one again, please...>.<

[Siraaj]

:sl:

Iran would not leave any invasion go away without a response.

[NoName55]

Eh? Say that one again, please...>.<

:sl:
Twelvers (اثنا عشرية Ithnāˤashariyya) are those shias who believe there were twelve sinless imams, as distinct from Ismaili and zaidi (including a boy who vanished at age of 2 then few year later came back as a man) then went in to hiding again, and is in hiding at present.

Until he comes out of hiding to lead them and takes over the world for them, they are allowed to lie to anyone who is stronger than them selves. Outwardly they are allowed to be all things to all men (people).
:w:

[Pygoscelis]

It was either that or go down in history as the man who let the murderers get away, the man who let the country fall apart.

I think you may be a victim of the Bush regiime media mind meld. Hussein and Iraq didn't do 9/11. That was Osama bin forgotten, who Bush has since annouced as "not important". The murders DID get away.

He also would have shown to the world that America was unprepared to respond to events like 9/11

The invasion of Afghanistan made sense under this logic. They were harbouring the people who were believed to have done 9/11. Iraq was completely separate, and was invaded just because public bloodthirst was high and itwas an opportune time to do another invasion, that Bush and his people had planned long before 9/11. They then invented the "they have WMD" excuse which turned out to be a lie.

So anywho, it wasn't much of a choice Bush had: live or die.

The USA was not threatened in any way by Iraq. Not in any way. Even if Iraq did have WMDs, which it didn't, they would only have been a threat to Israel, not the USA.

To see the USA as anything but an aggressor here is incredibly naive.

Orwell could do a sequel to 1984 on Bush's regime. The amount of doublespeak is dumbfounding. We fight "terrorism" with "shock and awe". We win peace by waging war. The Bush regime expresses shock at Sadam's torture chambers and then admits that it tortures people too - and that torture is a GOOD thing. It is bizarro world.

[Count DeSheep]

:sl:
Twelvers (اثنا عشرية Ithnāˤashariyya) are those shias who believe there were twelve sinless imams, as distinct from Ismaili and zaidi (including a boy who vanished at age of 2 then few year later came back as a man) then went in to hiding again, and is in hiding at present.

Until he comes out of hiding to lead them and takes over the world for them, they are allowed to lie to anyone who is stronger than them selves. Outwardly they are allowed to be all things to all men (people).
:w:

Oh. I knew that. I was just testing you. XP

Thanks. =D

The invasion of Afghanistan made sense under this logic. They were harbouring the people who were believed to have done 9/11. Iraq was completely separate, and was invaded just because public bloodthirst was high and itwas an opportune time to do another invasion, that Bush and his people had planned long before 9/11. They then invented the "they have WMD" excuse which turned out to be a lie.

Then whatever happened to the Iraqi general that said Hussein DID have the WMDs, but shipped them away? That's not so much as an argument against you as it is a question. I never got the general's name, nor did I ever hear anything else about it after a 2-minute radio story. And that was a few years ago now.

The USA was not threatened in any way by Iraq. Not in any way. Even if Iraq did have WMDs, which it didn't, they would only have been a threat to Israel, not the USA.

To see the USA as anything but an aggressor here is incredibly naive.

There's this thing, it's called revenge. Saddam might've wanted that after a little incident in the early 90s...

And I do see that U.S. as an aggressor, but not entirely. 9/11 did kill hundreds of civilians. Not an easy thing to forgive.

Orwell could do a sequel to 1984 on Bush's regime. The amount of doublespeak is dumbfounding. We fight "terrorism" with "shock and awe". We win peace by waging war. The Bush regime expresses shock at Sadam's torture chambers and then admits that it tortures people too - and that torture is a GOOD thing. It is bizarro world.

Undergoing a simulated drowning a few times, knowing that you're not going to be killed or having body parts cut off one at a time, skin peeled off, and family members shot, all with the knowledge that no matter what you do, you'll die painfully. Hm...Torture seems to be different between Iraq and America. If anything, the U.S. is being too soft on terrorists. Iraq, on the other hand, was being too hard on innocent people. I'm not going to defend the Americans' every action, because I find fault in most of them, but the war in Iraq was one of the few things that was actually justifiable.

On another note, does anyone think we're getting too off topic? Just a thought.:rollseyes

[Hashim_507]

If its gonna be war or conflict. I advise Bush that its one of his worthless wars.

[Harrumph]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../27/2003350252

[Makky]

:sl:

Iran's Target is regional , they don't seek to free jeursalem only but they want to free makkah and maddinah as well from sunnies

an american war on Iran would be the reason that justify the Iranian war "it's holy war" on saudia

Believe me the following few years will be very Hard

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Iran's Target is regional , they don't seek to free jeursalem only but they want to free makkah and maddinah as well from sunnies

an american war on Iran would be the reason that justify the Iranian war "it's holy war" on saudia

Believe me the following few years will be very Hard

Something to think about.


I wonder if the whole big mess is escalating so much because too many people are coming up with personal agendas that would benefit them if Iran is bombed.

I wonder if the mess is the result of America being an aggressor or is it the result of America being naive and being used by people that are creating a situation and division, in order to achieve their own gains.

[Woodrow]

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 22 — As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Iran Expanding Nuclear Effort, Agency Reports (February 23, 2007)

Typically secretive, the gulf nations have long planned upgrades to their armed forces, but now are speaking openly about them. American military officials say the countries, normally prone to squabbling, have also increased their military cooperation and opened lines of communication to the American military here.

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/wo...th&oref=slogin

[Siraaj]

Iran 'ready for war'



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there is no stopping his country's nuclear programme, comparing it to a train with no brakes, as as the United Nations Security council meets this week to discuss further sanctions.

One of his deputy foreign ministers is also reported as warning that the country is ready for any scenario it its nuclear row with the West, “even for war” as the country announced it had launched a rocket into space.

Mr Ahmadinejad said: “Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran’s move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear,” according to Iran’s student news agency ISNA.

He also claimed that the country’s enemies had hatched a range of plots to push the Islamic Republic to give up its disputed nuclear programme, including driving up the price of tomatoes and other food, but that such tactics would not work, Iran’s ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.

Rising prices, particularly the cost of tomatoes which form an important ingredient in Iranian food, have prompted growing public criticism of Mr Ahmadinejad’s government. The president has often dismissed complaints as media exaggeration. “In order to harm us, they (enemies) make plots, for instance they come and push tomato prices up in the market.

"They think we will give up our ideals with their plots,” he said

He added: “Of course, God willing, the problem of meat, chicken and tomatoes will be solved. One should be aware that our revolution is like a bulldozer ... the enemies think by throwing a few small stones and sand they can stop this bulldozer.”

Condoleeza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, responded to Iran’s declaration that it had no “reverse gear” on its nuclear program by saying on Sunday that what Iran needed to do was halt weapons-related activities.

Ms Rice said if Tehran did so, the United States was prepared to discussed trade and political issues, and she would be willing to meet her Iranian counterpart. “They don’t need a reverse gear. They need a stop button,”, she told 'Fox News Sunday'.

Manouchehr Mohammadi, an Iranian deputy foreign minister, echoed the tough talk, saying the Islamic Republic, which is accused by the West of trying to build nuclear weapons, was ready for any possible scenario.

“We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for war,” Mr Mohammadi was quoted as saying at a conference in the central city of Isfahan.

“If they issue a second resolution, Iran will not respond and will continue its nuclear activities,” he said.

The UN introduced sanctions on Iran in December over its nuclear work, which the West fears is aimed at building atomic weapons.

The UN Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany are meeting this week to begin drafting a new sanctions resolution after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had failed to meet a deadline in February to suspend uranium enrichment.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel power plants, but it can also be used to build atomic bombs. Iran says its program is designed purely to produce civilian energy and insists it cannot accept UN demands that it halt uranium enrichment, because they are contrary to its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory.

“The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to the end,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech carried by the ISNA news agency.

The announcement of the rocket launch, made on state-run television, appeared to refer to Iran’s efforts to launch commercial satellites into orbit.

Iran’s Science and Technology and Defense ministries built the craft, the state-run television quoted Mohsen Bahrami, the head of Iran’s Space Research Center, as saying.

Mr Bahrami provided no other details beyond saying that Iran had successfully launched what he called a space rocket or space missile.

Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, the defence minister was quoted by a newspaper as saying: “Building a satellite and satellite launcher, as well as (previously) launching the first Iranian satellite called Sina with Russian cooperation, and becoming a member of the space club, are part of the Defence Ministry’s plans.”

Iran in the past has announced that it wanted to be able to send its own satellites, including commercial ones, into orbit. But it has revealed little information about the project.

In 2005, Iran launched its first such satellite in a joint project with Russia.

Iran hopes to launch four more satellites by 2010, the government has said, to increase the number of land and mobile telephone lines to 80 million from 22 million.

It also hopes to expand its satellite capabilities to let Internet users to rise to 35 million from 5.5 million in the next five years.

Science and Technology Minister Mohammad Soleimani said today that Iran would speed up its space program, the official IRNA news agency reported.

“Investment in space is very serious and requires time, but we are trying to speed this up,” IRNA quoted Soleimani as saying.



source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1435615.ece

[Keltoi]

The Iranian president doesn't seem to even understand what war with the United States actually means. Lot of threats and boastful language, just like Saddam Hussein.

[AbuAbdallah]

salaam,
I don't think the U.S. will attack Iran because Iran is a Shiite country.
As the war in Iraq has proved, the U.S. supports the Shia that are killing the Sunnis, so they will never attack Iran.
Wallahu 'Alim.

[Keltoi]

salaam,
I don't think the U.S. will attack Iran because Iran is a Shiite country.
As the war in Iraq has proved, the U.S. supports the Shia that are killing the Sunnis, so they will never attack Iran.
Wallahu 'Alim.

The U.S. has no more support for the Shia than they do the Sunni. The Shia are the majority population in Iraq, so of course the government will be made up of a majority of Shia.

[Woodrow]

I'm not too certain what the name of the game is or where the playing field is. Never mind knowing who the players or or who is on what team.


Iran, Syria invited to Iraq ‘neighbors meeting’


Announcement by Rice reveals shift in U.S. approach to regional talks



Updated: 1:29 p.m. CT Feb 27, 2007
WASHINGTON - The United States and the Iraqi government are launching a new diplomatic initiative to invite Iran and Syria to a “neighbors meeting” on stabilizing Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.

“We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region,” Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery to a Senate committee. Excerpts were released in advance by the State Department.

The move reflects a change of approach by the Bush administration, which previously had resisted calls by members of Congress and by a bipartisan Iraq review group to include Iran and Syria in diplomatic talks on stabilizing Iraq.



SOURCE:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17364686/

[AbuAbdallah]

The U.S. has no more support for the Shia than they do the Sunni. The Shia are the majority population in Iraq, so of course the government will be made up of a majority of Shia.

I disagree. Iran does not pose a threat, becuase they are Shia. How would the U.S. be handling this situation if it was Saudi Arabia that had nuclear programs?

[Akil]

I don't think the U.S. will attack Iran because Iran is a Shiite country.

Totally off topic: If the original name for this group was the Shia’at Ali (party of Ali and his descendance) where did the Shiite spelling come from?

Back on topic: I think that notion is silly. The reason that the US works with the Shia more is that they are more represented by the Government and this has nothing to do with the size of the Shia population. The non-Kurdish Sunni didn’t partake in the political process and Ayatollah Sistani made voting for his list a religious obligation.

Case in point The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Republic of Egypt are both staunch US allies (their populations less than the Governments themselves), while we have no such relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran (outside of an antagonistic one).

[Keltoi]

I disagree. Iran does not pose a threat, becuase they are Shia. How would the U.S. be handling this situation if it was Saudi Arabia that had nuclear programs?

Iran does not pose a threat because they are Shia? I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Something to think about.

I wonder if the whole big mess is escalating so much because too many people are coming up with personal agendas that would benefit them if Iran is bombed.

I wonder if the mess is the result of America being an aggressor or is it the result of America being naive and being used by people that are creating a situation and division, in order to achieve their own gains.

There are some who take these upsets as opportunities and, if the anarchy can be magnified, it makes good cover for other forms of manipulation and many other agendas. If things continue along their present courses (plural), it will be a free-for-all in the Middle East. Some believe they've hit the limit of their patience, and then of course there is the matter of various interpretations of prophecy. Add this to other natural calamities and several man-made ones, such as the report I have concerning the discovery of excessive levels of birth control hormones in the Jordon river (received by a poster after I made a sarcastic comment concerning excessive violence in Israel: Is something wrong with the drinking water?) - lets just say I'm having a problem staying on top of humanity.

In truth, it isn't just America taking liberties, though they are the most obvious element in the mix.

Ninth Scribe