US will invade Iran in '06

Ok. So all the talk I'm hearing is that we plan on invading or bombing the crap out of Iran and soon. Who out there believes this will happen? Who out there believes there's a good reason to?

From what I've heard, there's been lots of high-level activity going on w/visits to Turkey...

'US planning strike against Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF



Talkbacks for this article: 200

The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.

www.jpost.com/

Mod Note: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 4-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I beleive there is good reason to.

But im not yet convinced that the US will do it, im sure theyll provide the hardware for the job, but i have a suspicion the Isralies will get the honor of protecting themselves.

It would be a disaster regardless of who 'invades' or 'bombs them' or whatever. The mess in Iraq should scream reality. But it does not. Anyone looking into this should look into the capabilities of the Iranians as well as that of our American forces. We can bomb all we want, but that won't quell what's on the ground.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It would be a disaster regardless of who 'invades' or 'bombs them' or whatever. The mess in Iraq should scream reality. But it does not. Anyone looking into this should look into the capabilities of the Iranians as well as that of our American forces. We can bomb all we want, but that won't quell what's on the ground.

Iran i beleive will be a precision attack war.

Young Iranians enmasse want a regeim change it seems.

The Iranian people arnt the target, there Leadership and WMD ambitions are so there wont really be any Quelling objective.

I think the whole War could virtually be fought with Cruise Missiles, just bomb and bomb and bomb all Military and Political targets, send in Special Forces mop up squads at the most.

What? You can only post in this thread if you have two warns?

The USA is on a warpath. Iran will be invaded and it will likely be this year. I see it as an inevitability from watching the last five years unfold as they have. The administration of the USA is unchanged in its policies, lies, and criminal conduct. The Middle East is now an ever growing cauldron of violence resultant from western military intervention into the region and there appears to be nobody in charge anywhere that wants to see it end.

It won't just be limited airstrikes when it happens either. Iran won't take being attacked lightly and full scale war will be the end result. I'm sure the USA and its dwindling coalition know this as well, but I'm sure they've got their minds set on a very long bombing campaign anyway.

I'm gonna go out and say this.

America will participate in military action against Iran and/or Syria in 2006 at the latest early 2007. I figure we should expect another 9/11 in order to PNAC support for another journey into the desert.

Never thought I would see nuclear mushroom clouds in my lifetime. Looks like the last generation redux is upon us.

The USA and Coalition is on a War Path because the Islamofascist Killers have attacked and continue to attack un armed Women and Children, we will destroy the sponsors of Terror.

Iran has this coming if you think you can say that Jews should be wiped off the face of the Earth with Impunity your about to learn and awful lesson in table manners son.

The only harbourer of Lies and Criminal conduct are the Iranian and Syrian state sponsors of Terrorism.

Peace be with you.

I can't see a US led invasion of Iran ever taking place. It is not uncommon for the US, however, to draw up full scale contingency plans - like a "What if" type of thing - with it's allies. Turkey being a major one.

We more than likely have these "battle plans" drawn up for every major prospective enemy of the US. I have read in other threads of these contigency plans covering a war with Syria and North Korea from all angles. In my honest opinion it's just the U.S. flexing their muscle letting Iran know "Don't think of doing anything crazy - we're ready for it" type of thing. We've done it before, and we most certainly will continue to do so.

I simply don't see the advantage of an open war with Iran. Our standing on the world forum isn't very high and this wouldn't make it better, and unlike Iraq there are several rather large world players that would possibly become involved should Iran come under attack by the US.

I found this Article, which you might find Interesting.

Der Spiegel

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans.

I think the Attack will begin in Early Spring 2006.

The Israelis bombed a nuclear reactor that was being built in Iraq (French technology, I think) in about 1981. They've never been ones to worry about international opinion when it comes to self-preservation.

Don't see any reason why they wouldn't do the same to a state whose president has been quoted as saying that Israel should be relocated to Europe, and that the Holocaust didn't happen.

I don't think the US has the manpower or the stomach to invade. An Iran without a nuclear program is acceptable to most people, moral issues about the regime notwithstanding.

Cheers

TD

Scott 'I can be bought and make predictions too' Ritter has nothing on the king and queen of Iranian predictions within ATS.
Last year, the two of you were found buried within "Iran will be attacked and/or invaded sometime in 2005," now look at you both, back buried in the "Iran will be attacked and/or invaded sometime in 2006." As long as you both keep guessing and predicting , odds are it is bound to happen sooner or later, just ask John Titor, huh?

Hey, look on the Scott 'I can be bought and make predictions too' Ritter brightside: even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.





seekerof

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Seekerof]

There's a link although obviously the source is probably going to take the Israeli point of view.


TD

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

(edit - usually helps if I post the link. Hmm. Time for that second cup of coffee I think.)

[edit on 3-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

"US will invade Iran in '06"


So? Iran has sent away nearly the entire world in regards to nuclear talks or cooperation, Russia just the other day. Iran is also (well documented too) one of the worlds most prolific sponsors of terror.

Ill rename this post for you East:

"US SHOULD have invaded Iran in '03 instead of Iraq..."

While I hate the prospect of another war, Iran is more deserving than Iraq in the first place. I hope we leave this one to the Israelis, since it is more their fight than ours. I dont think its our place to be World Police, but I would like to see a regime change in Iran. I bet most of us would.
I do think if it happens it will be a strategic strikes mostly. We will bomb the hell out of them, and do our best to avoid the urban gun fights. Iraq has taught us this lesson. The Iranian population will probably not meet us as liberators, so I hope Bush's fortitude doesnt surpass our military ability. We dont need another Vietraq. Whether you agree with the war or not, you have to admit it has gone less than optimal.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by DaFunk13]

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Young Iranians enmasse want a regeim change it seems.

Very true. Also, I read somewhere that Israel was planning to attack Iranian facilities in March of this year, so the situation could come to a head very soon.

When it comes to the youth of a nation wanting a regime change, I think it's safe to say that can be applied to any nation at this particular moment in history. Especially in the US.

Does that mean Venezuela is going to start bombing military facilities and launch amphibious assaults on Florida?

Doubt it.

The people of a nation wanting a change in government is hardly justification for another war, especially when that same thought process could be applied to almost any major nation. If we started liberating people based on their feelings towards their government we should start with ourselves and then worry about others.

[edit on 3/1/06 by Conquistadork]

Originally posted by Conquistadork
When it comes to the youth of a nation wanting a regime change, I think it's safe to say that can be applied to any nation at this particular moment in history. Especially in the US.

Does that mean Venezuela is going to start bombing military facilities and launch amphibious assaults on Florida?

Doubt it.

The people of a nation wanting a change in government is hardly justification for another war, especially when that same thought process could be applied to almost any major nation. If we started liberating people based on their feelings towards their government we should start with ourselves and then worry about others.

well, it is true that the will of the people wanting change is not justification for another country to declare war, it IS justification for a change

However, I disagree when you say that the thought could be applied to any other nation. Here and in other democratic country, change can come about through elections, and public opinion will (ideally) rule. In closed societies like iran, that is not possible. The ruling party, in this case conservative muslims, censor the society and do not allow dissent to affect them. This is ecspecially true in theocraticly ruled countries like Iran, where almost all aspects of people's lives are under government control.

It is in these despotic governments that the hatred and the sort of frantic patriotism exists that spawns those who commit terrorism. That is not to say that all terrorists come from these sorts of governments, but it is very true that these sorts of governments do create a sort of breeding ground for the extremism required of terrorism. That is why we as a free people must foster change in such countries, to not only protect ourselves, but open closed societies and allow the personal freedom that is necessary for peace.

Of course, fostering change does not mean you have to invade, there are many other ways to cause change in a closed society from the outside. The best way, in my opinion, to end Iran's theocracy is to let the youth keep watching mtv on thier satillite televisions, or in other words expose them to our culture. While our culture is far from perfect, young Iranians see our society and they envy it. They grow tired of thier closed, constrictive society, and grow to desire a more open country. However, this sort of method takes time, and those in power in Iran see these changes coming and become even more adament in thier control over thier people and hatred of the example we set. So if Iran becomes a threat before these changes can take place, an military invasion would be necessary to protect our own country, and to liberate the iranian people. The negatives of this of course are the loss in American lives, and the chance that other neighboring countries will use a war in Iran as an excuse to radicalize themselves, which is a little of what is happening in Iraq. So, its a tough decision and all consequences must be considered before war should be declared.

I still think it's foolish to say that a war and the loss of American boys and girls is worthwhile because someone half a world away doesn't like their government. If we were to foster these changes through war for every nation that didn't agree with their government - and I think this goes without saying - we would be in every non-democratic or free society in the planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would be willing to sacrifice your life for an Iranian teenager who has done nothing for you solely based on the fact that he doesn't like the way his country is being run? If that were the case, why don't you do something for the millions of teens in our own country who detest this current regime. Do you really think we can change things politically in this country? Following that same logic, consider the overwhelming number of people who called for an adminstration change here last election and didn't get it.

Politics solve nothing. If you want to go around and "liberate" every disenfranchised teenager who hates his government you'd be better off starting right here in the US before we strap on our boots and march into some dusty far away land to "Liberate" another nations poor disheartened teenagers by shoving walmart and MTV down their throats.

[edit on 3/1/06 by Conquistadork]