US/ Iran on verge of war?

Post Reply New Topic

We know Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, because it was Bush Sr. who sold them to Iraq in the first place.

If the US or Israel attacks Iran preemptively under a WMD clause, then all is lost as it would plunge the world into a war of apocalyptic proportions. It would completely destabilize the entire Middle East into full scale war, and likely provoke a serious response from countries like Russia and China (whom get a supply of oil from Iran). Not to mention, the patience that most countries have with US foreign policy might get exhausted, and see them refusing to help America or at worse, oppose America's action. The repercussions of such an action would be beyond anything imaginable.

On the other hand, Iran's action of using a nuclear weapon on a nation would cause a similar result, but it'll be more of a West/East v.s Middle East war. But there's one thing that would prevent Iran from doing such a thing, and that's the fact they have good ties with Russia, and if they did something stupid, they'd loose those ties, and they're important according to what an Iranian official said. If anything, Iran will be a clone of North Korea, all talk and threats, but won't attack until given a good reason to, and wanting the US to do something so they can retaliate justifiably.

It's all about playing political mind games, Iran won't attack until they can justify it by aggressive action by the US or Israel, and they are deliberately winding up the US with controversial speeches to provoke such an attack. They also leave a offer for talks in place so that they can resolve the situation peacefully (knowing how the US is war hungry and wouldn't do that), and simply wait. Their psychological strategy is working beautifully, as they're exposing America for what it is, just a monster in a field of monsters, wanting superiority over the others.

Iran's going to cave in on itself eventually. It's in the beginnings of a change similar to China's when the middle class started getting rich. The only reason Ahmadinejad has been putting up such a fuss lately is he knows as soon as a Shiite president pops up in Iraq, nobody is going to give a damn about anything he does. He's got to do everything he can to keep himself established as the Shiite leader in the Middle East.

Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of creating electricty, particularly when your country is floating on a sea of oil. The only reason nuclear power has recently gotten more popular in the United States is the same reason we're paying +$2.00 a gallon at the pumps. It doesn't make any sense to go through the trouble of building plants and such. Apparently no one's going to bother doing anything about it in Iran, North Korea, and otherwise though, so it's hardly even worth bringing up anymore.

Why're we still talking about the draft too? It's never going to happen. It's political suicide for anyone but leftists that are elected to do stupid stuff in the first place.

More wars!

What will those politicians think of next?

I swear, the more of this bull I here the more I argee with H.G. Wells

Which book are you thinking of? I think I know which one you are thinking of, but I forgot the name....

As everyone kills themselves, ultimately over absolutely nothing, I will relax in the mountains, away from the insanity that is society.

I think those in psyche wards are the sane ones.

As depicted in the movie "The Big Red 1," as they retake an "insane Asylum," an insane person picks up a machine gun and starts shooting everyone stating "I am sane!! I am one of YOU!!"

I hope iran and america destroy each other so i can form the AAA.

Make me think of "V", wherein the US and the rest of the world destroy themselves, and we turn fascist. That Moore chap, what a prophet ! !

Yes, I brought up World War II as an example. I did not bring up the Nazi's specifically. I suppose this now proves to many people that this makes me some kind of fanatic by default. I can't do anything about that. However, the example stands. The US and UK provided material support to the bloodthirsty dictator Isosef Stalin during World War II. Stalin killed upwards of 40 million people, far more then any Latin American dictator that the US supporting in the Cold War. Considering the fact that the Soviet Union openly admitted they desired to overthrow the democratic system of government, does this not provide some, if not necessary justification, then context to that support.

I am arguing that murdering innocent schoolchildren is evil, and should be combated. The response to this by many is essentially: "George Bush is a fascist." That is pathetic and most revealing.



The problem, cyanide, was that Hussein's government had a specific job to account for chemical weapons as a part of the treaty that ended the first war. This violates that treaty (along with numerous other things).



Do you know that he doesn't believe that Iran is a threat to the security of the region? I do, but maybe I'm an idiot or a fascist like George Bush. I don't think the terrorist threat meter is a good idea either but people were demanding something to inform them of the threat level (remember September 11?). So vetoing bills makes Bush an authoritarian ruler? You know how many bills Bush has vetoed? One. This is the smallest amount of President vetoes by a two term President since Thomas Jefferson (1801-09). President Clinton vetoed 36 bills. Franklin Roosevelt (in four terms) with a Democratic congress vetoed 372. Vetoes an entirely within the constitutional system on the United States and have been practiced since the beginning of the Republic.



I admit that the Bush administration decided to give in and drop some sanctions against India after they developed nuclear weapons. But there is a big difference between France, India, and Iran. India is a parliamentary democracy and has been they achieved independence from the UK. Iran is a theocracy ruled by mullahs with elections in which only parties approved by a ruling council are allowed to run. The leaders of Iran espouse much greater hatred towards the United States, Israel and the west generally then even the Soviet Union did.



I am worried about North Korea the fact has nukes. Currently North Korea is providing technical support for both Iran's nuclear and missile programs. After Iran develops a nuclear bomb they will desire to develop Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles to be able to strike the U.S. coastline.

I am more worried about Iran then North Korea. North Korea's leader is a crazed atheist. Iran's leaders believe in a messiah that will come to Earth when Armageddon arrives. Some clerics in Iran believe that they can actually bring this Armageddon on.

...



Again, and know this apparently indirectly brought up "Godwin's law" but I don't care. Answer this please: Was it the right decision to provide material support to Stalin's Russia during the Second World War? Yes, or no. Keep in mind that he killed many more people then Hussein did. We also gave some support to Mao during the war and he killed 60 million later on.

Remember, Iran had taken hostages (which is an act of war) and the Ayatollah was engaging in violent speeches against the United States at the time we supported Iran (we actually supported them to varying degrees until the war ended). The Soviet Union was, by, far the primary arms backer to Iraq with more then 50% of all arms. The US sent less then 1%.



Of course. This merely shows that being kind to animals does not prove that one will be kind to humans. Nazi Germany actually banned animal testing.



Iran is refusing to allow inspections. They also do not need nuclear powerplants because Iran is stock loaded with oil.



This comparison is mind blowing naive. 50% of Muslims in Britain polled wish to live under Islamic law. 1 in 8 say they would be willing to take part in terrorist operations. Muslims in the US are much more moderate however most Mosques are bankrolled by extremists Saudis (80% of estimated to be radical).

How many thousands of abortion doctors have been murdered? Have Christians flow jets into buildings? Have they declared holy war? Has overseas Christian terrorist groups blown up embassies, and women and children? Has the pope endorsed this activities?

Of course not.



It is the Iranian government. Why are you you more reluctant to believe this then to believe the United States is up to no good? Are (edit)you saying(/edit) Muslims too stupid to engage in such activities? Are Persians not as clever as white people?

(addition)Iran has been funding Hezbollah for many years. They have been engaging in terrorist attacks against both the United States and Israel since the 1980s. Hezbollah was responsible for the most deaths by terrorist attack by any group before the September 11 attacks by al-Qaida. Hezhollah still actively attacks and recently has called for attacks against both the United States and U.S. interests.(/addition)



I suppose that's because Muslims don't have beliefs of there owns, or cultures. In fact everyone in the world merely sits around waiting for the Americans to oppress them.



Nonsensical. In Vietnam, the U.S. had a draft army that was fighting against an opponent that was capable of against in offensive operations. Here, the U.S. has a volunteer army and the enemy cannot engage in offensive operations but merely can attack the local populace and set roadside bombs and ambushes that cannot seriously threaten the military's ability to maintain a presence in the country (although that does not mean popular support at home is not threatened).



Many times in history military forces have routed the enemy in their home territory.



That you for telling me what I think.



Saddam's weapons of mass-destruction were largely home produced. However the commerce department did allow certain materials into country that may have been used in the manufactor of chemical weapons. Like the case of Saddam's other imported weapon's, the vast majority of imported materials in this area were from the USSR, and a lesser extent, France.

Last edited by jimservo on 01 Feb 2007, 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Disclaimer: I have stated this before, but I cannot endorse a preemptive strike on Iran because I do not all the necessary information. However, I also think it is plausible that a preemptive strike might be necessary.

I doubt this.



Why would Russia and China initiate a war with the United States because the US/Israel launches airstrikes/war against Iran? It would be insane. The leaders of countries are simply not that stupid. It is likely that some warning would be delivered before something like that happened and would effect policy decisions. China is the least likely to go in for economic reasons.



The US went to war with Iraq despite the world "lacking patience." What is the world going to do, form a international anti-American coalition and prepare an invasion? Additionally, there are signs that Middle Eastern Sunni states may be willing to back such a preemptive action.



So what? Europe barely contributed to the Iraqi campaign. Does this mean Europe saying they will back Iran! I don't think even comparatively liberal Europe's population would be amused by such a move. The worst that can be expected is that, like before, some country like, say France, will illegal sell arms to Iran before campaign begins (France illegally sold arms to Iraq just before war started).



They would attempt destroy Israel. Such an action is unacceptable and cannot be allowed. If they proceed with Israel will no doubt retaliate. The United States has made it clear it will join any counterattack. I strongly endorse such action. No nation must be allowed to attempt to wipe another off the map with nuclear weapons.



There are many Iranian officials. Soviet officials said they were following arms agreements but they were lying.



So Jimmy Carter did a good job in trusting the North Korea's when they said they would not develop nuclear weapons and they proceeded to do so anyway?



Iran won't attack directly because they don't have to. North Vietnam didn't directly attack South Vietnam until 1973 (failed) and then 1975 (succeeded) By simply developing nuclear weapons, and forcing an American withdrawal they achieve their goal.

The US is not war hungry. Only 35% of Americans support the Iraq war. This is in line with with previous conflicts (excluding World War II) going back to World War I. The American people grow tired of war very quickly. They want a quick victory of they want out.

From The Times

(source link)

Doesn't Aminbijab and Bush both believe that the end of the world is near? I think Iran would love a new war because if Israel got involved all hell would break lose.

Also, it doesn't matter if 35% of Americans want a war if 99% in the White House want it.

How come Iran is not allowed to have Nuclear Weapons, but other countries can? Isn't Israel suppose to do a preemptive strike on Iran with backing from the USA? Did Israel president The Rapist step down yet?

Jimservo, you seem to be really supportive of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, he's the one that really runs the show.

George Bush is a Methodist, not a member of a Christian sect that believes the end of the world is near.

The President is the man who runs the United States military. The congress does have the ability to bar funding.



Every country that develops nuclear weapons creates the risk for more because a country with nuclear weapons has an inherent advantage over neighboring countries. This is why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons at essentially the same time. Israel has nuclear weapons but the rest of the Arab world knows that it is only a emergency self-defensive mechanism (Israel could be wiped out with a single nuclear bombardment). Now that Iran has a nuclear program other there are signs that other Arab states will soon start there own.



There have been rumors both for and against this for years now.



The President of Israel, which is a honorary position with no powers, name is Moche Katzav (Likud). He has been accused of rape and was suspended on 27 January 2007. Israel has a full legal system and he will face trial. The acting President is currently Dalia Itzik (Kadima).



I support the office of the President of the United States. I would hope that I would be willing to jump in front of a bullet for the President, regardless of party, as long as the President wasn't some kind of tyrant. My belief on George Bush's policies are independent of that. I have mixed views on his administration. Economically, it has been a success. Domestically, otherwise less so. On a foreign policy front, while I support his general strategic outlook I believe he has made some serious tactical errors. In addition his failure to communicate with the public (I am not just talking about speech difficulties) in making it we and now in what is likely to be a long-drawn out war have came back to haunt both the administration and the country.



There is no factual basis for this. Even in critical books on the Bush's presidency by those such as Bob Woodward, it clear that Bush is The President. In fact, in anything, Cheney's role has been less then what was anticipated, especially in the second term.

...

Does anyone have any clear, thought out rebuttals rather then rhetorical responses?

Yes, but why can't they develop nuclear weapons for themselves? If Israel has nuclear weapons then Iran has the right to develop them for defense against Israel. Plus, The USA is the only country that has ever used them.

I didn't George Bush was a methodist, has he gotten around to reading the Bible? He has admitted in the past that he does not read.

Israel is a democracy and clearly is not going to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against Iran. What would be the point? They would only destroy themselves! Israel is a tiny nation while Iran is giant by comparison in both territory and population.



Context is important. The United States used them at the end of the most bloody war in world history. The bombs themselves caused less immediate deaths then the firebombing of Tokyo not long before (although probably more due to the utterly horrible radiation). No one else possessed the bombs so retaliation was impossible. After the war, the U.S. offered to turn over both the weapons and nuclear technology to the control of the United Nations but the Soviet Union, at the time building their own bomb, declined the offer.



I am not sure what the basis for the comment that he "does not read" is from. The man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School with grades comparable or better then his opponents in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. There can obviously be no doubt he is capable of reading. Some books I remember it being mentioned he had read while he was in the White House were Supreme Command by Eliot A. Cohen, The Unknown Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Holliday, The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot, and Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin.

I have read each of those except the last and don't see why Bush couldn't have.