Is Iran next?

[oldman420]

So Iran is developing nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems.
I fear that if GWB gets reelected he will try to invade Iran also.
God forbid.
Any thoughts?

 

[NightCrawler]

If Kerry gets elected he may invade also so what's the difference ?

Do you really want Iran to have nukes and Missiles ?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: oldman420
So Iran is developing nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems.
I fear that if GWB gets reelected he will try to invade Iran also.
God forbid.
Any thoughts?

To bad someone didn't tell him I ran was spelled with an "N" and not a "Q"

For us to do so we will need the draft. I can just imagine what that would do to the Dub's popularity if all those who support him who that are of draft age will have to put their lives on the line for his mindless foriegn policy.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush says that Iran is no more dangerous today than when he took office. He also says we wouldn't need a draft if we decide to fight in Iran.

Text

Said Iran and North Korea, both with nuclear ambitions, are dangerous states, but not necessarily more so than when he was elected. He said the strategy he has followed ``makes them less likely to take action that would make the world more dangerous.''

Insisted he would not bring back the military draft, even if
there were a crisis with North Korea or Iran. ``I believe we've got
the assets and manpower necessary to be able to deal with another
theater should one arise,'' the president said.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
If Kerry gets elected he may invade also so what's the difference ?

Do you really want Iran to have nukes and Missiles ?

Kerry isn't going to invade Iran. 1) We don't have the resources. 2) We would definitely fight that battle alone. 3) Iran isn't going to pick a fight with us . . . but they may lay one on Israel.

I even doubt we would bomb Iran. The truth is that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. It's gotten worse over the past 4 years but Bushophiles cannot admit to such an objective truth b/c it would destroy their myth of "a safer world."

The world will either offer Iran enough "incentives" to stop their weapons programs or we will attempt to isolate them. The former is unlikely to work as long as Israel keeps a stash of nukes and Bush keeps toppling non-nuclear regimes. The latter is unlikely to work since few countries actually view a nuke-armed Iran as a threat (EU does but most of the Middle East does not).

The most likely scenario is that Israel's next looney tunes PM from Likud decides to "pre-empt". The ensuing conflict will not end pretty for either side. The alternative is that a thinking, practical Israeli PM negotiates a strategic withdrawal from Gaza and ALL outlying West Bank settlements. Simultaneously they initiate trilateral talks with Iran and IAEA about creating a nuke-free Middle East. Yeah, it will never happen but it's the only real hope for a just and sustainable peace in the region.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: oldman420
So Iran is developing nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems.
I fear that if GWB gets reelected he will try to invade Iran also.
God forbid.
Any thoughts?

haahahahahahahah

HOW! A draft? Bwa hahahahahahaha. That will never happen with Bush from what he says. He'll just say "times have changed" or some other crap.

And this is apparently why Saddam was misleading hte world. he had no WMD. he feared an invasion by Iran so he wanted an air of mystery. It was a totally logical, strategical move on Saddam's part. To bad we have a dumb cowboy as president. I'd even go as far as to say this was told to GWB before invading Iraq.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
If Kerry gets elected he may invade also so what's the difference ?
[\q]

1) Bush will invade Iran even without world support. The result. More hatred toward the US. More US debt. A draft. YES, a draft.

2) Kerry would use his words. Get world support for sanctions, etc. He understand you can't spread the military unlike someone else whom will go unmentioned. The world will start to like us more. No draft will occur.

While the Bush scenerio might happen under Kerry, it is much less likely. "The lesser of two evils". "Risk assesment". You decide on Nov 2. Who's thew greater risk here?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
If Kerry gets elected he may invade also so what's the difference ?

Do you really want Iran to have nukes and Missiles ?

Kerry isn't going to invade Iran. 1) We don't have the resources. 2) We would definitely fight that battle alone. 3) Iran isn't going to pick a fight with us . . . but they may lay one on Israel.

I even doubt we would bomb Iran. The truth is that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. It's gotten worse over the past 4 years but Bushophiles cannot admit to such an objective truth b/c it would destroy their myth of "a safer world."

The world will either offer Iran enough "incentives" to stop their weapons programs or we will attempt to isolate them. The former is unlikely to work as long as Israel keeps a stash of nukes and Bush keeps toppling non-nuclear regimes. The latter is unlikely to work since few countries actually view a nuke-armed Iran as a threat (EU does but most of the Middle East does not).

The most likely scenario is that Israel's next looney tunes PM from Likud decides to "pre-empt". The ensuing conflict will not end pretty for either side. The alternative is that a thinking, practical Israeli PM negotiates a strategic withdrawal from Gaza and ALL outlying West Bank settlements. Simultaneously they initiate trilateral talks with Iran and IAEA about creating a nuke-free Middle East. Yeah, it will never happen but it's the only real hope for a just and sustainable peace in the region.

And lets all be honest here. If Iran or any country gets nukes. It's not a concern about them lobbing one at another country. The concern is having them package it in a small form factor and handing it over to terrorists. And if that happens, NO one will know the true source of the material.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The most likely scenario is that Israel's next looney tunes PM from Likud decides to "pre-empt". The ensuing conflict will not end pretty for either side. The alternative is that a thinking, practical Israeli PM negotiates a strategic withdrawal from Gaza and ALL outlying West Bank settlements. Simultaneously they initiate trilateral talks with Iran and IAEA about creating a nuke-free Middle East. Yeah, it will never happen but it's the only real hope for a just and sustainable peace in the region.

1.) Israel will never give up its nukes - the minute it does so it is doomed - get that fact into your little head.

2.) What has withdrawal from Gaza got to do with Iran? Are you saying Iran wants to harm Israel because the latter is in conflict with their palestinian "brothers"? And if Israel does so, Iran would give up on their will to destroy Israel in return?

Ha!

3.) Oh, good to know you understand it will never happen. you may ignore my first line.

 

[raildogg]

NO, Iran is not next. A military invasion will be a HUGE failure. We must support the people of Iran in their quest for democracy, they are an educated people and have the means to stand up against the government.

They just need outside help.

We do not have sufficient forces to take on Iran's military, which might be the best in the MIDeast, its almost equal to that of Israel. Israel has more advanced weapons systems, but Iran has sheer numbers.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: raildogg
NO, Iran is not next. A military invasion will be a HUGE failure. We must support the people of Iran in their quest for democracy, they are an educated people and have the means to stand up against the government.

They just need outside help.

We do not have sufficient forces to take on Iran's military, which might be the best in the MIDeast, its almost equal to that of Israel. Israel has more advanced weapons systems, but Iran has sheer numbers.

Iran's sheer number will not come to play since a great buffer zone rests between it and Israel - Jordan and Iraq - both can't be forced to transfer military equipment. moreover, Israel and US don't seek an invation of Iran but rather preventing it from obtaining nukes; this objective can be accomplished by special and selected units of either IDF or US military, let alone combining the power of them both.

I do have to note though, that Iran could have Hizbulla fire up the northern Israeli border, but if more advanced weapon systems are to be used by them, Israel will not rest in the corner and let that happen.

 

[Trente]

DP.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: raildogg
NO, Iran is not next. A military invasion will be a HUGE failure. We must support the people of Iran in their quest for democracy, they are an educated people and have the means to stand up against the government.

They just need outside help.

We do not have sufficient forces to take on Iran's military, which might be the best in the MIDeast, its almost equal to that of Israel. Israel has more advanced weapons systems, but Iran has sheer numbers.

Iran's sheer number will not come to play since a great buffer zone rests between it and Israel - Jordan and Iraq - both can't be forced to transfer military equipment. moreover, Israel and US don't seek an invation of Iran but rather preventing it from obtaining nukes; this objective can be accomplished by either IDF or US military, let alone combining the power of them both.

I do have to note though, that Iran could have Hizbulla fire up the northern Israeli border, but if more advanced weapon systems are to be used by them, Israel will not rest in the corner and let that happen.

but Iran has some very fine weapon systems as well. Israel knows its too risky to try any type of air strike, it worked in Iraq 20 years ago, but the chances of Israel having the same success here are slim

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: raildogg
NO, Iran is not next. A military invasion will be a HUGE failure. We must support the people of Iran in their quest for democracy, they are an educated people and have the means to stand up against the government.

They just need outside help.

We do not have sufficient forces to take on Iran's military, which might be the best in the MIDeast, its almost equal to that of Israel. Israel has more advanced weapons systems, but Iran has sheer numbers.

Iran's sheer number will not come to play since a great buffer zone rests between it and Israel - Jordan and Iraq - both can't be forced to transfer military equipment. moreover, Israel and US don't seek an invation of Iran but rather preventing it from obtaining nukes; this objective can be accomplished by either IDF or US military, let alone combining the power of them both.

I do have to note though, that Iran could have Hizbulla fire up the northern Israeli border, but if more advanced weapon systems are to be used by them, Israel will not rest in the corner and let that happen.

but Iran has some very fine weapon systems as well. Israel knows its too risky to try any type of air strike, it worked in Iraq 20 years ago, but the chances of Israel having the same success here are slim

It took'em 10 years to declare victory over Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war and even then it was not a decisive one.

Furthermore, Israel will have to face the Iranian threat sooner or later; It is obvious why Iran's current regime does everything it can to accomplish the goal of obtaining nukes: to wipe Israel's greatest military advantage what will enable it to further undermine the Israeli state using far greater measures and increasing the terror actions it is using against Israel as we speak.
Others suggest it may consider the possibility of wiping tiny Israel even if the cost might seem too high...

Israel better deal with it now before Iran gets what it wants.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: raildogg
We do not have sufficient forces to take on Iran's military, which might be the best in the MIDeast, its almost equal to that of Israel.

Sad we wasted them in Iraq eh?

 

[ReiAyanami]

nobody's gonna invade iran. it would cause the collapse of the dollar and $100/barrel oil. the OPEC's iran emargo would make the 70's look like a dream

 

[piasabird]

You dont have to invade a country to stop or limit their nuclear activity. Isreal dropped just a few bombs on a uranian enrichment reactor in Iraq once and it worked quite well. One well placed bunker buster can do wonders.

 

[rudder]

Thoughts? I think the leaders in Iran like living. They know if they ever did anything threatening with nukes they would propbably never see the next sunrise.

People compare Iran and Iraq, but I think the leadership of IRan is vastly different in its attidudes versus the former Iraq regime. Saddam felt he should rule the arab peninsula and showed a propensity to fulfill that dream. I think the Iranians are more gounded and want nukes just to have a bargaining chip.

 

[imported_litesgod]

We won't invade Iran in the near future, but I have always believed Iran was a long term part of the Bush "strategy." Look at a map, if Afghanistan and Iraq are both US friendly states, Iran is pretty well pressured. I also don't believe Iran will ever be allowed to reach real nuclear status. Isreal recently purchased a whole lot of bunker buster bombs from the US and I'm sure Iran was part of the reason. Eventually Iran will fall to a less hard-line government, but until that point we have to keep pressure on them.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: oldman420
So Iran is developing nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems.
I fear that if GWB gets reelected he will try to invade Iran also.
God forbid.
Any thoughts?

The neocons will invade Iran and Syria. That decision was made before Bush was even elected. What you're hearing now about Iran is the exact same load of BS we all heard about Iraq two years ago.

Interestingly, there aren't any plans to attack the country we all know is responsible for 9/11, nor is there any progress on apprehending the person who ordered it. But whatever, they're all sand ni@@ers, right?

 

[0marTheZealot]

If Iran was smart, they could devastate the world economy at the first hint of an invasion.

Simple destroy their oil wells and platforms. That's the loss of 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, in an age when we have zero spare capacity. This would cause the price of oil to double or triple in an instant. I think that if they were smart, they would use that a leveraging tool.

 

[Sultan]

I dont understand.

If the US is not part of NPT, why does it insist no other nation not possess nuclear technology?

If I was in the Iran govt, and I see what happens to neighboring nation who possess no WMD, I'd do everything possible not only to attain nuclear technology but also develop a suitable arsenal as a deterrent.

 

[0marTheZealot]

they have the best weapon in the world right now. a significant chunk of oil production. I say if it coems down to that, kill your production out of spite and watch teh world collapse into depression and anarchy. If this war was being sold a decade or two ago, other producers could have picked up that slack. as of right now, only Saudi Arabia has spare capacity, and even they are pumping at near full levels.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

2) Kerry would use his words. Get world support for sanctions, etc.

Please elucidate Kerry's plan of getting communist China to agree to allowing a security council resolution of sanctions on Iran. China has already said there is no way in hell they will allow a SC resolution allowing sanctions on oil exports from Sudan or Iran.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The most likely scenario is that Israel's next looney tunes PM from Likud decides to "pre-empt". The ensuing conflict will not end pretty for either side. The alternative is that a thinking, practical Israeli PM negotiates a strategic withdrawal from Gaza and ALL outlying West Bank settlements. Simultaneously they initiate trilateral talks with Iran and IAEA about creating a nuke-free Middle East. Yeah, it will never happen but it's the only real hope for a just and sustainable peace in the region.

1.) Israel will never give up its nukes - the minute it does so it is doomed - get that fact into your little head.

2.) What has withdrawal from Gaza got to do with Iran? Are you saying Iran wants to harm Israel because the latter is in conflict with their palestinian "brothers"? And if Israel does so, Iran would give up on their will to destroy Israel in return?

Ha!

3.) Oh, good to know you understand it will never happen. you may ignore my first line.

Truth is I really don't care if Israel gives up it's nukes. But hopefully the next generation of American leadership will stop sending them BILLIONS of destabilizing dollars. Your analysis is fatally flawed though. Nukes are not a saving grace for Israel. The combined conventional forces in the hostile neighborhood is still no match for Israel. Aside from direct provocation (say bombing a reactor) it's highly unlikely that any of those countries will strike Israel. Accordingly, Israel can keep it's nuke holstered in perpetuity. Alas, Israelis might be scared enough to elect another troll like Sharon. In that case, all bets are off.

Obviously, the regional politics are complicated. Suffice it to say, clearing up the Palestinian situation, gives all parties one less than to argue about. Gaza is a strategic liability to Israel. The outlying West Bank settlements are strategic liabilities to Israel. Removing those settlements and treating the civilian Palestinian population with decency would win Israel a lot of allies in the EU . . . but more importantly it would give moderate Arabs a fighting chance against radicals.

I could have easily ignored your entire post since clearly you are blinded by a deep seated prejudice against non-Semites and a overt bias for Israel. Such idiocy has produced our current situation. It's ridiculous to believe that "more of the same" is a viable solution.