America is rearing up to attack Iran... (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Iran has a whole pile of oil, this makes it economically relevant.

Bush can not just go and do what he wants - he needs congressional approval ptherwise how does he pay for it? And congress members all face re-election etc.

What does destroying Irans nuclear facilities do?

Angers Iran, reinforces anit-US sentiment, reinforces the powerbase of the theocrats and makes them want nukes even more. In fact given a nuclear first strike against them, had they any nukes they would likely use them.

 

[AntiHyper]

i thought the president can lead the country into war for like a week before the president would need to ask for congress approval for waging a longer war.

hmm 1 day is enough to destroy iran with nuclear bombs, it's pretty easy to attach to those ICBMs let it rip.

 

[davin]

yeah, but bush still needs support from the republican party. i dont think he wants to get impeached

 

[HotShot]

yeah, but bush still needs support from the republican party. i dont think he wants to get impeached

no he doesnt - hint MOSSAD hint hint...

 

[Iron]

There is no plan for an invasion of Iran, if there is it exists only in the mind of the most insane hawk. The talk is of an overnight strategic bombing raid taking out key nuclear facilities. The question is how extensive the raid would be: whether to restrict the attack to nuclear intallations or a more general attack against non-nuclear military infrastructure at the same time.

Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. Putting a decisive end to a nuclear Iran is perhaps his way of offsetting the Iraq disaster.

It's a stupid article. Of course the Pentagon would be drawing up plans for a military option, just like the diplomatic arm draw up a diplomatic option. The idea is to give the President enough information to make the right decision.

Likewise, of course the White House wouldnt rule out the military option. What message would that send Iran?
Practically, for the many reasons cited, an attack/invasion & its aftermath is not an option.

 

[davin]

no he doesnt - hint MOSSAD hint hint...

and you're going with what theory this time round?

 

[loquasagacious]

A nuclear first strike is politically untennable....

It would isolate the US from allies, etc etc.

The only possibility might be an israeli strike similar to the one which destroyed Iraqs nuclear research facility back in the 80s.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

...the one the UN heartily condemned, but look what it might have saved from happening since. I'd be in favour of the Israelis doing it again to Iran.

 

[loquasagacious]

What did it save from happening? We were still accusing saddam of having or at least wanting nukes.

And at the time he was a US ally and I wouldnt rule out US aid for saddams nuke programme....

 

[HotShot]

What did it save from happening? We were still accusing saddam of having or at least wanting nukes.

And at the time he was a US ally and I wouldnt rule out US aid for saddams nuke programme....

oil isnt gonna save iran, thats about the only resource it has, there is plenty of it elsewhere. nuke iran, wait and then get the oil? - if you really want that bad.

as for irans defence -its shit, probably worse iraq. iran has very little organisation. it will be crippled by Hitler oh whoops america, just like how france was invaded whoops afghanistan.

 

[davin]

you're right, america shouldn't attack countries unless its directly threatened and has already been attacked. what was america doing thinking it could interfere in the the middle east in the gulf war and afhanistan? whoops, i mean in world war II against Germany, and against Japan in the south pacific

if you have issue with america's interventionist policy, i can only assume that you have issue with america fighting in world war I at all, and also in the European portion of World War II

of course, if you're going to draw the comparisons to the Nazi regime, i'd like to see your evidence that the U.S. is adding territory to itself right now. Its not claiming control over Afghanistan or Iraq, just removed the regimes that had been in charge. Its beyond a stretch to compare that to the Nazis essentially extending Germany. Soviet Russia at least you could compare it with only a sizeable stretch

 

[Iron]

you're right, america shouldn't attack countries unless its directly threatened and has already been attacked. what was america doing thinking it could interfere in the the middle east in the gulf war and afhanistan? whoops, i mean in world war II against Germany, and against Japan in the south pacific

if you have issue with america's interventionist policy, i can only assume that you have issue with america fighting in world war I at all, and also in the European portion of World War II

of course, if you're going to draw the comparisons to the Nazi regime, i'd like to see your evidence that the U.S. is adding territory to itself right now. Its not claiming control over Afghanistan or Iraq, just removed the regimes that had been in charge. Its beyond a stretch to compare that to the Nazis essentially extending Germany. Soviet Russia at least you could compare it with only a sizeable stretch

Your point was momentarily funny, and I like funny, but
WW1: Germans sinking US ships and all that
2: Maybe something to do with Japanese bombing bejesus out of P.Harb and Germany declaring war first.

The better comparisions would be US in Vietnam & USSR in Afghanistan.

 

[davin]

WW1...i'd have to check back, but there were some issues with it....the public in the U.S. was very opposed to entering the war...it was Europe's war, not America's.

yeah, there was VERY good reason to keep Japan away from Hawaii and the western coast of the U.S. after Pearl Harbour, but that doesn't effect what Japan was doing elsewhere in the Pacific. Germany I don't think had actually declared war first, either. It was just intercepted communications between Germany and Mexico that implied that Hitler was looking this way that got used as justification...if my memory serves.

[edited: my bad, germany did declare first]

i'd also add that personally, it does seem like leaving saddam in power after the first gulf war was sort of like if, i'd world war II, we'd pushed germany back inside its borders and then just sort of walked off and left hitler still in charge.

 

[Iron]

P.H was American territory, you know.
G.war1.0 was largely an effort in testing technology and 'kicking the Vietnam syndrome' (i.e short, effective, low casualty, global chest-beating, public/media acceptable, video game, fun war)

Back to Iran, the hyperbole in the media is crazy.
Newshour had a good report with experts (Pearl, General & an ex-Clinton hawk) suggesting that all sites are far from known and that there's no way to get an exhaustive list of nuclear/wmd locations (cant know what you dont know). Striking known locations (bombers/cruise missles) would take a day, but taking out their known retaliatory capacity (key positions in the gulf) would take a week.
Also suggested that a strike would simply redouble Iranian (and other rogue state) efforts to arm themselves.
A nuclear strike is being ruled out by everyone. Sounds like the media were trying to latch on to an irony, or a sloppy reporter lifted something off the Chaser's site.

 

[Minai]

http://www.iranbodycount.org/
That seems like a well researched document on the consequences of war against Iran.

Unfortunately, if US do strike Iran, there will be much more terrorist attacks against the West.

 

[HotShot]

you're right, america shouldn't attack countries unless its directly threatened and has already been attacked. what was america doing thinking it could interfere in the the middle east in the gulf war and afhanistan? whoops, i mean in world war II against Germany, and against Japan in the south pacific

if you have issue with america's interventionist policy, i can only assume that you have issue with america fighting in world war I at all, and also in the European portion of World War II

of course, if you're going to draw the comparisons to the Nazi regime, i'd like to see your evidence that the U.S. is adding territory to itself right now. Its not claiming control over Afghanistan or Iraq, just removed the regimes that had been in charge. Its beyond a stretch to compare that to the Nazis essentially extending Germany. Soviet Russia at least you could compare it with only a sizeable stretch

of course i have issue with america fighting in WWI and WWII and vietnam. Firstl in WWI it was purely for economic reasons that they interfered. Same thing with WWII, this was the turning point in superpowers. England Germany Russia were the superpwer (maybe France) prior to WWI, After WWI it had reduced to just England Russia and to later Germany -america had developed greatly as a result of WWI. By the end of WWII England had been hammered, Germany had been hammered which left America and Russia. So you can see the two great wars benefited America greatly!.

US is adding territory right now, they have been doing so ever since WWII. But not quite the territory of Nazis, this is more strategic, in the sense they need not have americans there, but it is typically run by america. Like for example ISrael is a huge strategic location controlled America. Israel will not act unless it has the permission of Israel and if it does America will punish it. but it doesnt work the other way, America does not need the permission of ISrael.

In iraw and afghanistan as far as i can see american havent achieved as of yet. Except a good source of oil.

 

[davin]

so, HotShot, what you are saying is, you have issue that America helped defeat Nazi Germany?
Or is that simply because you have such utter disdain for Jews that it might not be a stretch that you'd not exactly have been emotionally broken up if the Holocaust had been completed against them?

And America HASN'T achieved a good source of oil. Oil production is down in Iraq from what it could've been under Saddam

 

[Serius]

I would like to say here that Davin seems to have a clue, but everyones history is sketchy at best in this thiread.
People, dont diliude yourself, America is a war machine, they could take on essentially every country in the world and not lose[ would be hard to win but idont see them losing] Ofcourse it isnt as hard as it sounds because only a handful of countries are of military threat, France, Germany, England[although i am sure they would be all the way with LBJ, so not really counted] Russia China are the biggies.
Occupying is ofcourse another matter. America went into WW1 and 2 for self defence because in WW1 their ships, including unarmed ocean liners were being sunk and in 2, Pearl Harmbour mainly but there was other shit going on waaaay before that. Vietnam wasnt really a "war" a such, more of a conflict that was part of the cold war[interesting to note at the time it was rarely refered to as a war, usially the Vietnam "situation" or "conflict"]

What did they do to you?


(My father is Iranian btw)

Oh well then you probably have more of a cllue than me. Does that mean he fled the dominating and racist government or he just wanted to live in aus? I have a friend who is Iranian[well actually she was born here, her parents are Iranis] and i have come to dislike the country, not only for their government but also the general attitudes to the outside world. In particular i despise how they hate Jews.[ olympic games anyone? how many times have Iranian athletes refused to directly compete with Israelis]


HOTSHOT: Why the HELL would you have a problem with the Americans fighting in WW2? i assume you would prefer to be speaking japanese right now in that case.

 

[loquasagacious]

I daresay that some among us have a very good grasp of history and international relations....

Iron and myself both studying such topics at Australia's top university.....

/intellectual hawtness.

 

[Kyle O'Brien]

Don't forget the Zimmerman telegram for reasons why the US joined WWI. The US were pretty pissed that the Mexican were going to try take back what was righfully theirs, with the help of the Germans. (They would have failed but that is besides the point in the end)