It's going to take a war allright!

My take on this is a bit more of deception, but not by the Bush Administration, but by the countries themselves, TrueAmerican, that you wonder on the consequences of their intervention.

Perhaps they knew exactly what Iraq did NOT have..in that, if their intent were to be to posit themselves through the mainstream as the ones to have said "Look at those filthy Americans, and what theyve done!", then they've certainly accomplished their goal.

Just like a good lawyer would do, if you discredit he who would cause you the greatest harm, it's certainly much easier to garner support.

Perhaps those who MAY have intervened, didn't and with DAMN fine cause....to further theirs.



Just a twist on it...



AB1

Thanks for the reply TrueAmerican, the sarcasm is duly noted

I would just like to add, in regards to the Republicans versus Democrats thing; I feel as though mainstream America is resting all their hopes for 'change' on the swinging pendulum between Democrat governance and Republican governance. Regardless of whom becomes ellected, US foreign policy will not change much if the people themselves do not demand that change of their government. At the moment is seams as though the general populace does not know what the problem is, but they know that something is somewhat amiss and they simply hope that 'someone else' will sort it out when they are in office. "There's a problem? Well then oust those Republicans and in with the Democrats!" This is not a solution.

America is a massive country, and causing a change amongst such a vast spectrum is incredibly difficult. I am not sure how 'the populace' as I have mentioned should bring about this change, or how they should be informed of which choices to make, but I do know that it is going to be very difficult.

How can two political parties with highly similar policies represent the interests of 300 million unique individuals?

One thing which I do take offence from in regards to this type of discussion is when the credibility of an argument is ignored simply because the poster is a 'foreigner'. I am not an American, and this does not mean I don't understand what is happening with America and its leadership.

Word War III is close enough that I can taste it.
The War in Iraq is one of the biggest blunders in history. It was a bad discion. You have to admit, if America pulls out our troops before the job is finished, Iraq will become the haven for Al Qaeda and other such groups. Then they will attack, hit America so hard that it will not be a major world power. I'm just gonna have to face it. America is DOOMED. And we should thank Bush. The job over there is never gonna be finished.

I was wanting to be a tanker, but I'm thinking now. Iraq is the only place that they'll send troops to. I don't want to kill someone who will just kill himself any way. I would like to go tank to tank, gun to gun, with someone who is truelly evil, and at equal strength. Someone who will fight valiently face to face, not IED to tank treads. Oh! Thank you so much Bush! Thank you for the beginning of our beloved country's end.

Personal message to Bush:
I wish you could just pull out our troops and be a real man!
We don't need oil as much as we used to! Have you ever heard of E85 and hydrogen and electric cars that can plug directly into the wall at home?!
Bush! You are a coward! I wish Ford was still alive! He was a better president!

Now that is out. Releif. But either way, we're screwed. Take out the troops too early, mad Muslims attack us.
Leave the troops in, war leads to Armaggedon.
Just thank Bush.


signature:
"Do you hear the thunder echoing throughout the streets? This is Lebanon's blunder cause Hezbollah thinks not of the heat. Do you hear the thunder echoing throughout the streets? We must all concurr that a ceasefire will not treat."-Chariot 3-Hear the Thunder(Mid East Crisis 06)

I read this in the morning and just thought am I really surprised it seems to me its just another move in a very long game of chess which literally means the world.

Thanks for that link marcopolo. That right there just tied it all in for me. Israel bombed Osirak at a time when the US supported Saddam. In other words, AGAINST US interests. They did it in their interests, and to heck with the US.

IMO, only the foolhardy at this point would believe that Israel would not dare attack Iran's nuclear facilities alone. You're damn straight they would. It's just that this time, Israel's interests happen to coincide with Bush's in eliminating or reducing the "supposed" threat from an advancing Iranian nuclear program.

And now it is absolutely painfully obvious to me what is happening this time around: Bush ain't going into Iran! Israel is! We're just gonna ride shotgun in case Iran has anything to say about it! The only reason all those ABM's are going into the region is because this time, the enemy has the ability to strike US interests on a much larger scale.

The US is simply just bracing for the attack, and helping to defend any retribution from Iran by deploying ABM's and additional forces in the Gulf. I swear, I feel strongly about this, and hope to God I'm wrong.

There are several possible scenarios:

1) Israel attacks their reactors, and Iran and Syria do nothing. Objective accomplished. For a while. But what if a bunch of Russian scientists are killed in the process?

2) Israel attacks their reactors, and Iran/Syria respond against Israel only. Well depending on how hard Israel is hit, it may escalate into an all out war. But remember the defense pact between Syria and Iran!

3) Israel attacks their reactors, and Iran/Syria attempt to attack Israeli AND US targets or direct interests in the Gulf. Well then hey, says Mr. Bush. Israel attacked Iran and then Iran attacked the US. So what other reason do we need? With a legitimate attack on us, Bush can immediately take authority, regardless of Congress, to attack back in self defense. But of course the astute are aware that it was planned like this all along, with the US benefitting, according to the warmonger, at any or every step in the process.

4) The incredible happens and Iran bows to international pressure to allow unhindered IAEA inspections, with out of country enrichment, i.e., Russia. But seeing as Iran just refused 38 inspectors, they don't quite seem to be leaning in that direction. They are getting bolder with each day that America tries desperately to stop Bush from going any further.

5) And then of course, the worst: that Russia or China get involved, and the entire middle east erupts in chaos. Or worse. Might not be just the middle east. Even with over 1000 McDonald's in China, they don't really need the US anymore to make Big Macs. But of the two, it is more likely to me that Russia would get involved, especially if there is no warning and many Russian scientists in Iran are killed.

Funny thing is, there has been warnings to Russia. Years of warnings. And yet Russia has basically given the world the finger, and sold advanced weapons to Iran, in addition to providing them with nuclear technology. This is such a clusterf*** at this point that I don't see any way out of it anymore. Israel will just NOT accept Iran's nuclear program, no way, no how, not never. Ever. And they're going to do something about it whether the world likes it or not.

Originally posted by The_Modulus
I am not an American, and this does not mean I don't understand what is happening with America and its leadership.

Well if you don't live in America at the moment, that doesn't mean you don't know what is going on, you are right.

But the thing is, unless you live here, you cant know how the citizens here depict the two parties. I agree that from a 3rd point of view, outside of the country, the parties policies look quite similar. This is pretty sad though actually because citizens inside the country know that the policies are actually quite a bit different and represent quite different ideas and plans.

Republicans tend to be seen by Americans that are not Republican as overly conservative to -some- degree, sympathetic to business and corporation leadership in legislation rather than workers benefits and pay increases. They are seen as being against Government funded programs designed to help poor people, disadvantaged people, and people such as drug addicts and other groups. They are seen to be war mongerers, and always picking for a fight with another country, usually to stimulate or 'jumpstart' a sluggish economy.

Democrats are seen by people who arent Democrats yet are citizens of America and live here as being overly sympathetic to the poor, the disadvantaged, and other groups, giving them too much for free when they should be earning it through a paycheck from employment. They are seen as being in favor of a strong central Government with wide sweeping ability and power, as opposed to invidiual provinces or principalities (known as states of america) having more of that power to make decisions regarding their individual populations. They are seen as being too strongly opposed to conflict with other countries when it is thought to be necessary by the Republican(s).



This is how the two parties are seen from within.. kinda sucks eh?

When I vote, I vote for the candidate that is least likely to attempt to cause Armageddon to occur. In this case, it was Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, yet I do not consider myself a democrat or part of the democratic party.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Israel will just NOT accept Iran's nuclear program, no way, no how, not never. Ever. And they're going to do something about it whether the world likes it or not.

Exactly - I've been saying this for a while now. And it could happen any time now. We can only hope Iran take it on the chin and don't start shooting back. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that in the aftermath of the attack an American ship in the Gulf might get sunk by "Iranian" weapons and the news of several hundred dead US servicemen will be all the US masses need to give Bush the green light to go flatten another country

I really can't see this ending peacefully. Iran don't seem to be backing down. Israel never backs down. Something has to give. The only chance I can see is that somebody behind the scenes in Iran might see what's coming and do away with the president, then take a more moderate stance on the issue. There do seem to be some rumblings of discontent towards Ahmadinejad from a few places in Iran lately. If not....expect the worst when you wake up every morning from now on.

Originally posted by Curio
The only chance I can see is that somebody behind the scenes in Iran might see what's coming and do away with the president, then take a more moderate stance on the issue. There do seem to be some rumblings of discontent towards Ahmadinejad from a few places in Iran lately.

Now that would be nice, for a while, until the next blabbermouth comes to power in Iran and repeats this all over again. And in the meantime, Iran continues to get stronger, reinforced by acquisition of advanced arms from Russia and China. It could get to the point where they become so strong that the US would need a very sizeable force to even have a chance of doing some real damage to their nuclear facilities.

Which brings me to another question: What if Iran, backed by a Sino-Russian alliance, is able to continue to repel Israeli and American attempts to take out their reactors? With no other option, would Israel be forced to take a nuclear option against Iran? And then what?

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined

Israel, go against the wishes of the US, or violate agreements? Nah, never!

• U.S. says Israel may have violated agreement by using clusters in Lebanon
• U.S. supplied the bombs, which have killed more than 20 people since end of war
• Israel says it "acted as any government would in ... self-defense"
• Congress expected to be notified of the situation Monday

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration will notify Congress Monday that Israel may have violated agreements with Washington when it fired U.S.-supplied cluster munitions into Lebanon in its war with Hezbollah last summer, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing State Department officials who spoke Saturday, the Times said the preliminary findings had spawned a sharp debate -- which one official characterized as "head-butting" -- within the administration over whether Washington should penalize its ally for using cluster munitions in towns and villages where Hezbollah guerrillas placed rocket launchers.

The Times reported some midlevel Pentagon and State Department officials contended Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions against populated areas.

Well, g then, I wonder if the US would penalize Israel for nuking Tehran then? Ya think?

Israel knows that it can do whatever it wishes without the U.S. condemning or actively trying to stop them from doing it, unless it is something most grave (ive read rumours that U.S. jets turned israeli jets back from iraq headed to iran, that had nuclear armament). Again it was just some crap i read on a forum here, and you cant believe any of this crap, right?



Considering the circumstances, I'm sure they figured they'd be ultimately justified because the Hezbollah militants were firing the rockets from densely populated areas to try to stop Israeli retalliation of a more severe nature.

The Israelis did try to avoid intentionally killing civillians in that conflict, if they hadnt, if their strikes werent confirmed beforehand and there wasnt solid intel such as knowing for a fact X amount of enemy 'combatants' are in this location trying to kill your civillian population with rockets, then many more lebanese civilians wouldve been killed.

Im sure there were "trigger happy" instances, as there always is with the Israeli military, but overall, they were following an overall plan of minimizing civilian casualties.

Hezbollah was following a plan of maximizing civilian casualties on both sides, directly and indirectly. Israelis directly via rocket fire, Lebanese indirectly via human shield tactics (like firing rockets from some poor families backyard, or from a room in a high rise apartment building that has innocent families all over the place, hoping the Israelis are too compassionate to retalliate against their attacks intending to kill innocents)

The whole thing sucked and will suck again in the future, as we all know how Lebanon goes.. i mean, look at West Bank and Gaza right now, sheesh.

[edit on 1/28/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by SteveR
Ideological war is a thing of the past. Today's capitalistic world is profit motivated. I am of the firm belief that a nation shall wage war if it makes good business sense. Judging by this, it makes little sense to see Russian or Chinese troops involved in the Middle East.

I had meant to respond to this sooner SteveR, because it does raise an interesting point. The issue of war making good business sense, and whether that could benefit Russia or China in that sense. And on that point, is it only American, war-profiteering capitalists that can benefit from a war-energized military-industrial sector?

What is curious about your post is that you seem to be forgetting that Russia has a tremendous economic investment in Iran, and expects to see future profits from it. If Iran's nuclear facilities are wiped out in a strike, then it seems to me that preventing that would be in Russia's best economic interests. That seems more pragmatic than ideological!

In China's case, they have a vested interest in keeping oil flowing from Iran, as staggering growth and energy demands mandate it.

But whether for ideology, pragmatism, or economics, I feel that the rest of the world are pussies. As an American looking in hindsight at Vietnam, with even more at stake here in the middle east, there is no question that we have been AGAIN lead astray. Foolish us for failing to avoid history repeating itself. AGAIN. Corrupt government just refuses to learn.

The Putin's recent speech was very interesting... he nearly warned the US that if they strike Iran, Russia might do something very bad... like going to war, or proxy war with the US... or gearing up to war.

Everyone in the world, including US citizens would want the US government and neo-cons dead right now, but no, they continue their crap, who will stop them? The US population with elections? Yeah right, sorry, but unless a revolution...

So military superpowers have to ally and fight against it.... like the allies did against Hitler and Germany hell-bent on invading foreign country to expand their influence...

Another guy who made a strange speech was Breiwzinski... He is in the higher inner circles of war criminals, and he exposed that the US government could stage a terrorist attack to go to war with Iran... so there's a branch of the high level criminals who start to believe that their own plan is going too fast and that it must be stopped...

Russia say no... banks say no... China say no... world population say no... some branchs of the new world order criminals say no... only the extremists in the new world order want it... we should be worried if they indeed attack Iran with nukes, because if they attack, it will be that. And they will kill chineses and russians workers who work in Iranian nuclear installations and oil industry. That will piss off China and Russia.

World War 3? I'm pretty sure no, but we are at a major corner of history if they go ahead with that attack.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So military superpowers have to ally and fight against it.... like the allies did against Hitler and Germany hell-bent on invading foreign country to expand their influence...

Yes, that is basically the jist of this thread, Vitch. But I still want to underscore a question I asked in the OP, which interestingly no one really seemed to have an answer for. It is a critical question:

When faced with the reality that conventionally the US couldn't stand a chance against a force like that- even with the help of hesitant allies- there would be only one choice: retreat or break out the nukes.

So now the question is, would Bush have used nukes in a case like that? Was he so intent and sure that Iraq was going to blow up the world that he would engage in global thermonuclear war to make his point and quell this wretched supposed threat from Iraq?

I'd like an answer from someone who thinks that he would have used nukes in that case. I don't feel he would have, and would have likely backed down due to overwhelming congressional and public opposition, not to mention getting Lord only knows how many US troops killed conventionally.

The bottom line is that if Iraq was SUCH a threat to the USA, then it SHOULD be worth using nukes over to defend the country against any alliance that would interevene. And the case Israel faces with Iran developing nukes may illustrate that point about as well as it can be illustrated. Israel may have no choice. But we clearly did.

AAhhhhhhhhhhh the sky is falling again crowd. Israel is not going to stop Iran from going nuclear. Yeah the Iraq reactor was a totally different ballgame altogether, can we agree on that? Nothing is really set to change anytime soon at least on the US end. The US isn't going to attack Iran unless they are caught supplying weapons and even then i doubt it. Russia is still hurt over nato expansion and Putin is still making Russia can do this and will not tolerate this speeches. So whats changed? Nothing! You guys are pretty overdramatic at that almost like you want something bad to happen.

I'd like an answer from someone who thinks that he would have used nukes in that case. I don't feel he would have, and would have likely backed down due to overwhelming congressional and public opposition, not to mention getting Lord only knows how many US troops killed conventionally.

I think he may have used nukes. He doesn't care. I'll go with the NWO reduction population plan theory, you all know that the NWO wants to wipe out 90% of the human population by various means, including wars. So I don't think they would have cared if a nuclear war would broke out.

Even if the US would have nuked all middle-eastern countries, I don't think Russia or China would have nuked the US back, because they wouldn't be attacked personnally.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I think he may have used nukes. He doesn't care. I'll go with the NWO reduction population plan theory, you all know that the NWO wants to wipe out 90% of the human population by various means, including wars. So I don't think they would have cared if a nuclear war would broke out.

Even if the US would have nuked all middle-eastern countries, I don't think Russia or China would have nuked the US back, because they wouldn't be attacked personnally.

lol Vitchilo, are you just trying argue for argument's sakes?

NWO population reduction? Come ON! No way. Not via nukes. They have their nifty "secret" prisons and chaincars with shackles for that, complete with termination chambers and executive orders effectively bypassing habeus corpus. Besides, what good would a nuclear wasteland do them? Hehe, then again, I suppose reptilians could adapt to life underground.