US will invade Iran in '06

A couple of things seem to be missing from this debate. Like Syria and what an attack on Iran would mean to them. How would they react, and what are their capabilities? This should not be overlooked. Also, what would the blowback be (from Iran) inside Iraq, especially.

I highly recommend this article:

Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 January 2006

The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.

"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."

An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.
www.truthout.org...

i agree with you that iran cant have nukes in order to disarm israel. but i cannot believe in our current system to actually disarm israel after words like i have said before. i believe that we will keep encountering the same problem til

A. we move israel to europe or russia where it should be considering russia and europe are the ones who decided to give the jewish people their own state

or B. take all nukes out of the middle east. including israel and all other countries there. then attempt to disarm india and pakistan after(getting to far ahead of myself)

plan A will probably never happen though it would stop both nuclear threat and terrorist threats in the middle east (not fully but by ALOT) and allow israel to keep there nukes, just in a different area of the world.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Invasion is out of the question at this point in time, as well.

I guess that depends on who all is willing to go along. If the EU was fully committed with us, and Russia and China have assurances they will still get their oil, then it wouldn't be as out of the question as us going alone. I guess we'll have to see how badly the rest of the world wants to avoid nuclear war.

So as par, the whole Iranian issue rests with the UN and IAEA, and I am sure that will prove quite fruitful....not.
I predicted it just a few short days ago, that Iran will indeed acquire nuclear weapons. Time will only tell if my thinking on this is wrong.

I really hope it is.

yes but id also like to address the point that the media is downplaying irans previous cooperation attempts. they did volentarily shut down reactors AND research, let inspectors in, and also sign the NPT. they havent broken the NPT, they had their reactors and research down for a decent amount of time, and i cant blame them for being tired of the OK for them to start back up again.

what actual PROOF do we have of them making weapons? from all the speculation what rock solid proof do we have? im not willing to send soldiers in on suspision and speculation alone, we wont make that same mistake again.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
A couple of things seem to be missing from this debate. Like Syria and what an attack on Iran would mean to them. How would they react, and what are their capabilities? This should not be overlooked. Also, what would the blowback be (from Iran) inside Iraq, especially.

I'm not saying things would be a sunny picnic. But even the most grim scenario presented in your links, far pales in comparison to full scale nuclear war, wouldn't you agree? I don't think there's a cut and dry, right or wrong answer in this debate. I think it's just a matter of what kind of chances do we want to take to avoid armed conflict with Iran. Are we willing to accept the greatly increased chances of full scale nuclear war in order to avoid possible confrontation with Syria and possible blowback in Iraq?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes but id also like to address the point that the media is downplaying irans previous cooperation attempts. they did volentarily shut down reactors AND research, let inspectors in, and also sign the NPT. they havent broken the NPT, they had their reactors and research down for a decent amount of time, and i cant blame them for being tired of the OK for them to start back up again.

The Iranians have NOT let the IAEA inspectors check everything, namely those underground hardened bunker enrichment facilities. Further, Iran is in violation of the NPT, again, according to those IAEA reports.

what actual PROOF do we have of them making weapons? from all the speculation what rock solid proof do we have? im not willing to send soldiers in on suspision and speculation alone, we wont make that same mistake again.

Excuse me, but are you saying that the IAEA is making crap up?
The US and the EU is basing most of their speculation off of the IAEA reports.
IAEA says Iran still blocking access to crucial military sites

He said this was despite the access Iran has provided during the past two months, after the UN body threatened to take Tehran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions over non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
what actual PROOF do we have of them making weapons? from all the speculation what rock solid proof do we have? im not willing to send soldiers in on suspision and speculation alone, we wont make that same mistake again.

Case in point, the Bush administration has zero credibility after the Iraq fiasco.

Why would any rational human trust what they claim at this point? WMD anyone?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Case in point, the Bush administration has zero credibility after the Iraq fiasco.

Why would any rational human trust what they claim at this point? WMD anyone?

It's by far not just the Bush administration making these claims. In fact they have been markedly on the sidelines recently. It's the IAEA and the EU who are making the most noise.

seekerof im sure youve read the NPT right? they have no right to stop peaceful nuclear facility pursuit. they have no proof of making weapons. enrichment maybe but weapons, no. they arent in violation of the NPT until its proven they are enriching uranium FOR WEAPON PURPOSES. we cant prove that and we havent been able to.

yes they are removing the seals, which they had willingly closed, and now are tired of waiting 2 years to open back up. give me more then speculation and the fact they wait their enrichment program on their own soil as an exucse to go to war over WMD. they are being watched by U.N. watchdog agency while doing this. i dont get it you act they are doing it without anyone knowing.

www.iranmania.com...

I edited my previous post a few minutes ago with a link to an article, which more could have been provided, that indicates and supports what I mentioned about Iran's years of being in violation--non-compliance--with the NPT.





seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]

1. jaja- You've slightly missed the point. The practical veto power I speak of comes when one is able to act by conventional means and be immune to serious consequences because such consequences would constitute an escalation which could trigger a MAD response, or when one is able to maintain a position which is conventionally untennable because for anyone to take that position would require a scale of action which requires MAD response.

In short, when it boils down to MAD, possession is 9/10ths of the law, because it's dangerous to take it back. Whoever gets their first will probably get to keep it.

That's why America never invaded Cuba- Russia had the veto in that regard because the men on the ground were aligned with Russia.

That's why Syria can't do anything direct about Israel- Israel has the veto because they hold the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights and the victory needed to change that would have to be so crushing that it would constitute a first strike and call for MAD to be followed.

If Iran gets the bomb, they can do as they see fit with only limited consequences if any, and if they see us coming to do something, all they've got to do is get in the way before we show up.


2. If China destroys the dollar their also destroying a huge and lucrative market for their exports- they didn't get us by the balls because they had any intention of pulling them off, they grabbed us by the balls because they love us and they don't want us leaving. If the US tells China that Iranian nukes are by no means acceptable, the logical Chinese play is to help us take it through the UN, put in a UN approved Iranian government, and have it reaffirm its previous obligations, including the oil deal with China.
Unless the permanent Security Council members really believe that they have the ability to stop us (or more accurately, to stop Bush- we've got to continue to recognized the dichotomy between what is and what theoretically should be) they are likely to check us as best they can by coming along for the war and blocking us from any furthering any hidden agendas, thereby checkmating the Bush agenda, preserving their own interests, and by happy coincidence causing a potential war with Iran to be fought for in such a way as to actually protect the legitimate security interests of concerned nations, as opposed to advancing the interests of Dick Cheney's friends.


3. Our WMDs do not protect us from Iranian WMD. I've explained the scenarios already. Furthermore, George Lucas' decision to write political hints into one of my favorite movies is of no value as evidence, and our Jedi friend has so far not provided the "verification" he promised.

Now I happen to believe that Democracy in America is gravely ill (and am under no illusion that this is a recent development- since our revolution the Tree of Liberty has been severely undernourished; the mix has been off- too much blood of patriots and not enough of tyrants- however this by no means makes every act of the United States illegitimate. The US Government, despite a variety of spectacular malfunctions, does share common interests with the people often times, although not necessarily for the same motives. When the US Government considers an action which will serve the interests, especially the safety of the American people, it is not wrong for the people to make common cause with their government, although they should keep it in mind that the government still isn't to be trusted lightly.


4. I wouldn't be too worried about the joint excercises between China and Russia. America conducts wargames even when it doesn't plan to kick someone's butt. Their war games (at least the ones I've been aware of) consider the possibility of a Pacific War, presumably because hey want to 1. Be ready for and 2. Deter any kind of major flare up including North Korea, Taiwan, and/or Japan. Besides that it's a great chance for Russia to size China up and improve relations with China- I wouldn't bet that China can count on Russia at crunch time unless Russia really feels it has something big at stake. If China and Russia want to make me nervous, they need to drill for a mobilization into Southern Asia- if they start drilling for rapid mobilization and joint ground operations in Southern Asia, then I'll take them more seriously, at least re: the former Soviet states, and to a lesser extent Iran.


5. I agree with ECK that during a move on Iran would be the ideal time for anyone else to make any moves they might have in mind. The fact of the matter is that if China goes after Taiwan, America isn't going to try and stop them. Protecting Taiwan no longer serves any purpose that I am aware of. We kept a Chinese government on ice for a while in case Chinese Communism met a speedy end, but at this point Taiwan isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be.
It's MIGHT be worth a skirmish to a stupid president, but I doubt it's worth a real war to anyone, and getting China out once they are there would definately be a real war. Perhaps I've missed something, but I fail to see the big deal about losing Taiwan.

As for South Korea- we're no longer in any position to mount a convention defense of South Korea anyway. Even if the North isn't willing to use nukes on Southern soil (not a bet I'd be quick to make anyway) we can't support a large American force there anymore because of their ability to make an EMP or nuclear attack on our aircraft and vessels.

The best way both to defend South Korea and attack Kim Jong Il is to leave the peninsula and support moves towards reintegration. The North Korean regime will not survive open relations with the South.

If the North should attack though, our move is 1. Not to be in the way when it happens. 2. To buy China off and get them to tug the North's purse strings and force them into accepting some human rights provisions in the South, perhaps including partial autonomy within North Korea. As I said above, any interaction with a the free South is going to undermine and eventually break the chain of lies that holds together the cult of personality in the North. Destroying the enemy's units is only second best, so why worry about a war that's born to lose anyway? Let's face it, a war in the Koreas is a born-to-lose deal unless America is willing to make the first nuclear strike.


Last but not least- being directly nuked is not my primary concern, but unless we board every ship that comes within a few hundred miles of our coast for a thorough search, and board all inbound aircraft before they leave to come here, we aren't nuke proof.

I don't hear much fairness or balance coming from the US mainstream media on this issue. Big surprise.

One point that was brought up is that Iran has not broken the NPT.

If you look at it from Iran's perspective (which I know is impossible for some), they clearly are fed up with being bullied around. I'm sure they see Israel with their nukes, Pakistan with theirs, India...

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if the UNSC voted in favor of disarming the United States by whatever means, what do you think our government would say (USA)?

I imagine it would go something like this, "Go ahead, make my day."

Many people would point out that the USA is the only nation that has ever used them on another country.

Just keepin it balanced...

www.state.gov...

article 4, part 1
"1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty. "

nothing....that means nothing. untill you can prove otherwise, there is nothing that can deny them the right to peacefully pursue nuclear energy.

also in article 5 they also did by shutting down all nuclear sites for at least over a year. now if you want to say that because the IAEA has suspected for awhile that they are making nuclear weapons they should have some sort of basis other then the fact the country is pursuing nucleear reactors for a power source.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One point that was brought up is that Iran has not broken the NPT.

*scratches head*
Just provided three sources that indicate that in fact Iran has been in violation--non-compliance--with the NPT for years.
Opps, thats right, they did not come from truthout.org, therefore, they are meaningless and not correct, huh, ECK?


Edit
Ah hell, heres a list more of sources indicating Iran's violation--non-compliance--of the NPT:
Iran + non-compliance with the NPT





seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]

As for the Korean peninsula, we should remove all remaining US troops and redeploy them Back to the states to train for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That would clear the way for any response necessary on our part, in the event of an invasion by NKorea. I'm quite sure the Navy could handle that. And it wouldn't be pretty.

Distractions like that can be devastating. The only way to alleviate that risk, is to remove the troops.

We should also encourage reaproachment (i.e. the two Koreas Sunshine Policy). Let them work it out.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least- being directly nuked is not my primary concern, but unless we board every ship that comes within a few hundred miles of our coast for a thorough search, and board all inbound aircraft before they leave to come here, we aren't nuke proof.

Don't you agree that a nuclear exchange in the middle east could escalate and spiral into a full scale nuclear war? Especially if Israel is in it's death throws and strikes out at Europe and Russia?

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One point that was brought up is that Iran has not broken the NPT.

*scratches head*
Just provided three sources that indicate that in fact Iran has been in violation--non-compliance--with the NPT for years.
Opps, thats right, they did not come from truthout.org, therefore, they are meaningless and not correct, huh, ECK?seekerof

Seekerof, you've not once embraced a single source I've offered. Snipe all you want. There are several schools of thought on this out there. You of all people should know that.

And just for the record, you were one of ATS' leading proponents for invading Iraq b/c they had WMD. We all see how that worked out.

Thanks for responding, though. You're input's always welcome.



[edit on 1/12/06 by EastCoastKid]

The sources are against you on this, ECK, and have been, that is why you started pulling from truthout.org.

You, as with few others, can continue your uses of one way horse vision blinders, but Iran is in violation--non-compliance--with the NPT and that is per the IAEA, not just simply the EU or US.

So please, carry on with your deflection tactics, but it does not factually change what is, contrary to what you, and a few others, have blindly asserted.





seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]

Other than nuke envy, what hardships will Iran endure if they don't get nuclear weapons? They've already been offered a deal to be able to peacefully generate nuclear power, and they turned it down. ECK, I am just wondering if you personally think it's worth the chance of nuclear war in the ME, and possibly even worse, to be fair with nukes? And also, where should the line be drawn? I'm sure every nation can give you a good reason they think they need nukes.

ok seekerof state the part of the NPT they are breaking. bring the link, state the section and part that they are breaking, then prove they are actually doing so. if you can do that for me, i will accpet them breaking the NPT but not till then.


27: its more about the right to have them i think then actually having them. they are being denied what is clearly given to them in the NPT, the right to peaceful nuclear programs. this INCLUDES uranium enrichment. so because they are enriching uranium and are enemies with israel who has nukes, now they are number 1 suspects and public enemy #1.

why didnt we disarm israel while iran had there programs froze for 2 years or so? why didnt we take their weapons away and then give them both the same plan for uranium enrichment in a foreign country?