Is the attack on Iran Inevitable?

Is the war in Iran inevitable?


  • Total voters
    0
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 [SIZE=-1]have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], slaughter and fitnah) during time of their[/SIZE] (Twelvers') [SIZE=-1]weakness, then they backstab Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")[/SIZE]
:w:
 
Last edited:
:sl:
Lying is part of their religion.(They [SIZE=-1]have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], slaughter and mayhem) during time of weakness of Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")[/SIZE]
:w:

Brother would you please quote the source you are using to describe Taqiah.
 
:sl:
Lying is part of their religion.(They [SIZE=-1]have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], slaughter and mayhem) during time of weakness of Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")[/SIZE]
:w:

:w:

I just realised you are making reference specificaly to Iran and not to Islam. I apologize, my error.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
:sl:
Lying is part of their (Twelvers') religion.They [SIZE=-1]have a declared agenda and a secret agenda (of "Jihad[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], slaughter and fitnah) during time of their[/SIZE] (Twelvers') [SIZE=-1]weakness, then they backstab Muslims or anyone else for that matter, it is called "Taqiah")[/SIZE]
:w:

Eh? Say that one again, please...>.<
 
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:
 
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.
 
: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
 
: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
 
: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.
 
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/world/middleeast/23gulf.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
 
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/news/world/article1435615.ece
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top