Is Iran Next?

@Maciamo

What Kerry said is that he wants to increase the US Army by two divisions. This is not to use in Iraq, but for other needs in the war on terrorism and other places. And the increase in special forces is also a total (not #'s in Iraq). My point is this: he also wants to increase the size of the military. (by the way Satori, that is the only way to prevent using stop losses). And I don't see how you can effectively double the special forces without allowing the ones that already wash out of training to pass...that doesn't increase your strength, that weakens your unit. :?
 
In order to prevent the US launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran, Iran has increased its nuclear productions in order to construct nuclear weapons. Iran is doing this because it knows that the best defence a pre-emptive strike is a nuclear arsenal, and it does not want to end up like Iraq. North Korea is also doing the same thing ot prevent the US from invading it any time soon.

Not only has Bush created more terrorism, but he has unwittingly encouraged nuclear proliferation. Three cheers for Bush!
 
Foxtrot Uniform said:
Not only has Bush created more terrorism, but he has unwittingly encouraged nuclear proliferation.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely true. Bush & Co. are a danger to the entire world. :eek2:
 
I don't think we have to worry about the US invading Iran, even if Bush wins the election. If the Iraq war had gone well, I would be extremely worried. But it hasn't, and the results have pretty much assured that the US won't be getting involved in any other invasions for a while. There are a few reasons:

1) The US military is stretched too thin and they simply don't have the forces necessary to stage an invasion. Iran is also a much bigger, more populous country than Iraq which would neccesitate an even larger military force to conquer and occupy it. Plus Iran's military strength is conisederably greater than that of Iraq at the time oflast year's invasion.

2) With public disgust at the costs of the Iraq war rising it would be politically impossible to sell another such (needless) war to the public. They were fooled once on Iraq, but I'm pretty sure it'll be another 40 years (ie the amount of time between the phony gulf of Tonkin incident which LBJ used to start the Vietnam war and Bush's use of the phony WMD threat to start the Iraq war) before they trust another president enough to lead them into another quagmire.

3) Iran, unlike Iraq, is a quasi-normal member of the international community with extensive trade links to the rest of the world. Concern over their nuclear program and indications they may be trying to develop the bomb is about the only issue of concern, and if the US had trouble getting anyone to support the Iraq war they would have even less support and greater international opposition to an Iran war.
 
@Senseiman
-Well said. It makes sense. With those terms, it would be spectacularly stupid even for our current President to fail to see them.
 
@Senseiman

I totally agree with you, but what if the Bush administation decided that Bin Laden had found refuge in Iran (and make up fake evidence), and/or another terrorist attack on the US is blamed on Iranians or a group (alledgely) supported by the Iranian government ? Wouldn't that change the public opinion (of the more stupid majority) ? They could shift their strategy and give full power of the Iraq rebuilding to the UN, and thus liberate enough troops for Iran.

What I fear the most, like Mad Pierrot, is a conspiracy between Republicans and Democrats (then the world would be at the mercy of a few rich American oligarchs...). Kerry gets elected because Bush let him by messing up his speeches against him on purpose (can a man who reach the highest position of power in the world really be stupid ?); then they plot a fake terrorist attack like 9/11, blame it on Iran. As Kerry has said he wanted to create 2 new divisions, that would come right in time to invade Iran. Kerry also said he wanted international cooperation, and this is how they (the oligarchs) will bring the UN in Iraq to liberate the troops for Iran. The UN being in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be able to counter-attack US bases there. Machiavellian indeed.
 
One thing is certain, as long as the Irak turmoil continues, there isn't going to be any Iran or Syrian adventure, because no sane general would start a war with so many problems in their backyard. It would be a logistical nightmare keeping supply lines in Irak, if the bulk of their forces would be shifted torwards the Iranian border. And they would need the troops in Irak because the Iran armed forces aren't the Taliban militias.

Another thing that also comes to mind is, that right now the moral of the average G.I. Joe in Irak must be low, especially in the National Guard brigades. From what I have read so far, there is a sense of dismay reguarding the lenght of time they are being made to endure and with no WMDs found, the notion of shoving democracy down a Iraqi throath doesn't make much sense to them either.
 
Maciamo said:
Why did they invade Iraq ? Saddam is an evil dictator (put in power by the US to fight Iran in 1979) and is connected to Al Qaida. Wrong answer again. The right answer is simply oil too (more evident this time).
Don't forget that Bush started his carreer in the oil business and still makes most of his money there with his friends.
Click to expand...
somewhere you forgot the tallest, most incredible lie : arms of mass destruction. that was the real reason... poor us citizen... they have been driven by the nose right were this guy wanted them to be : in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason.

Maciamo said:
So why would they want to attack Iran ? Why, why ? But, yes, oil !! Iran also has plenty of oil. And whay would be the pretext this time ? Well if Bin Laden is nowhere to be found in Afghanisthan or Iraq, he must have been hiding in neighbouring Iran, famous for giving refuge to terrorists for decades. Another reason ? Weapons of mass destruction. This time the American public will buy it as Iran has more capabilities than Iraq had on the matter. Better still, they have also refused to let UN inspectors in. Sounds familiar ?
Click to expand...
yes, this guy is crazy enough to do it ! but what is more frightening is that 50% (more or less, one way or another) of the population will be voting for him.

mad pierrot said:
What I fear isn't that the U.S. is planning on bringing democracy and such to Iraq.

No, I'm afraid that U.S. foriegn policy had become a hydra of corporate animalism. I mean, I wouldn't be so scared if the U.S. plainly stated that it was protecting it's vested interest in the oil business. But it isn't the U.S. that is interested, it's individuals who are. The problem is the number of politicians who don't mind sellling out for a buck. That's what scares me.

Democracy? This sounds more and more like an oligarchy of the rich.
Click to expand...
well ! not so mad, pierrot, after all !
he has a good, sound and reasonable vision. we are in for everending troubles.

mind you oligarchy has been in ever since the human beings exist. and funnilly enough, they have always been rich... and if not at the start, then they became rich(er) ever after...

Satori said:
That's absolutely true. Bush & Co. are a danger to the entire world. :eek2:
Click to expand...
please, say it again ! i love when you speak like that !
:blush:
 
The scariest thing of all....

are the masses of people that watch and do nothing.
 
Maciamo said:
@Senseiman

I totally agree with you, but what if the Bush administation decided that Bin Laden had found refuge in Iran (and make up fake evidence), and/or another terrorist attack on the US is blamed on Iranians or a group (alledgely) supported by the Iranian government ? Wouldn't that change the public opinion (of the more stupid majority) ? They could shift their strategy and give full power of the Iraq rebuilding to the UN, and thus liberate enough troops for Iran.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be enough. For one thing, the administration's lies about Iraq/Al-Quaida ties have already been exposed and I think people (well, more people anyway) will look at things a bit more critically. Additionally Iran has extremely bad relations with Al Quaida and they would never give Bin Ladin haven. Even if Bush tried using forged evidence saying Bin Ladin was there it would probably be pretty easy to disprove. Another major terrorist attack might put American public opinion back into its 'viscious irrational revenge' mode, but there is no guaruntee (and I would say pretty low likelihood) of any 9/11 scale attacks occuring in the next little while.

Maciamo said:
What I fear the most, like Mad Pierrot, is a conspiracy between Republicans and Democrats (then the world would be at the mercy of a few rich American oligarchs...). Kerry gets elected because Bush let him by messing up his speeches against him on purpose (can a man who reach the highest position of power in the world really be stupid ?); then they plot a fake terrorist attack like 9/11, blame it on Iran. As Kerry has said he wanted to create 2 new divisions, that would come right in time to invade Iran. Kerry also said he wanted international cooperation, and this is how they (the oligarchs) will bring the UN in Iraq to liberate the troops for Iran. The UN being in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be able to counter-attack US bases there. Machiavellian indeed.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything remotely believable about conspiracy theories that far-fetched. The main reason is that staging a 9/11 attack on the US would recquire far too many people to carry it out for it to remain a secret. In the real world Politicians never try stuff like that because it is way too risky to their own asses. Getting the CIA to murder some third world politician they dislike is easy enough, but arranging a major attack against the United States? That is not going to happen.

A full scale invasion and occupation of Iran, which covers a much wider area and has triple the population of Iraq, would probably require 400,000-500,000 troops minimum. Take all the troops out of Iraq and add Kerry's 2 divisions and you'd still be left with a force way too small to carry that out. And thats not mentioning the financial costs, which would be beyond reckoning.


One thing I should say though is that while an invasion is never going to happen, the risk of an air attack is a possibility. That is where Bush and Kerry differ substantially. Bush is saying he won't even negotiate with Iran on the issue, he just wants to use the threat of force to make them comply with his demands - whatever they are. Kerry is saying he wants to join the rest of the world in using diplomacy and the threat of sanctions to resolve the issue. Bush tends to sneer at this less-combative stance as if it were a sign of weakness and yet, if he had tried it himself with Iraq the world would be just as safe today, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved and November's elections would probably have been a cakewalk for Bush. Nothing is more pathetic than a guy (especially a president) who doesn't know when he's been proven wrong even after pretty much everyone else on the planet has figured it out.
 
Problem is, the politicians' lies don't even have to make sense and somehow people still seem to go along with it. I'm not making any predictions about Iran, but I've pretty much lost all faith in the American public when it comes to asserting themselves and calling BS on something.

Senseiman wrote...
Bush tends to sneer at this less-combative stance as if it were a sign of weakness and yet, if he had tried it himself with Iraq the world would be just as safe today, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved and November's elections would probably have been a cakewalk for Bush.
Click to expand...

Bush doesn't even have good strategy for his own best interests. He could have done everything he wanted to do, but if he'd been a little more sneaky about it, everyone wouldn't be so pissed off about it. He would have easily gotten re-elected and then he could have done anything he wanted. What a dumbass.

...and...
Nothing is more pathetic than a guy (especially a president) who doesn't know when he's been proven wrong even after pretty much everyone else on the planet has figured it out.
Click to expand...

I think he knows he messed up, but he thinks it's important to continue to look confident. He said something in the debates that got me thinking. He said something like, "If you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, what kind of message does that send to the troops? No one would follow such a leader." So that says to me that he thinks he has to seem confident in order for people to follow him. If he looses his confidence, even his hard core supporters will start to doubt him. His confidence is just a mask for his fear and incompetence.
 
Last edited:
America seems less and less democratic to me under scrutiny. Indeed, I constantly have to remind myself that America is not a true democracy, but really a constitutional republic. A republic that supposedly has a democratic vote. After last election?s fiasco, I no longer even have faith in that. (After all, in the end, it's all up to the Secretary of State. The popular vote isn't even required, I think.) What democracy is left in America is failing, and failing rapidly, I think.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Most people here seem to have their head on straight.
(Even more so than me...)

:p
 
mad pierrot said:
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Most people here seem to have their head on straight.
(Even more so than me...) :p
Click to expand...
nothing ! absolutely nothing, because they will NOT let you do anything about it. those who have the power will not share it with you, little citizens ! they're gonna keep it all to themselves...

honestly ? i'm sorry for americans living in US i hope it's not going to become the largest "guatanamo city" of the world !!!

so i shouldn't care. but i cannot. i have many friends there that are expecting me and that I am wanting an waiting to see again. i used to go there 2, 3 times a year. i have stopped going to the states since december 2001. i do not wish to go through all the controls that are now mandatory and i dont want them to probe into my life to the extent they are actually probing all the passengers boarding a flight or a boat. so what ?

some of them are comming to see me, and they all are amazed when they read the european press or when the watch the european news. it looks to me as if they are discovering the world. they dont get half the information about irak as we get here. and when a us citizen living in the us talks to another us citizen living in europe, the ones from usa are amazed to see the world of difference between them. and i watch that not believing what i see or hear. to the point that it allmost reminds me of the 50s, when the russian citizen had only one official version... well, maybe it's a bad example, but never the less it's just unbelievable !
this actual government is king in mis-information, des-information and lies !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top