Do we attack Iran?

Originally posted by koji_K

i don't think war would have been effective even had we not invaded iraq. i think the consequences would be much like we're seeing in iraq now, only much worse. also, i think iran, much more so than iraq, would have been amenable to a relatively more peaceful regime change through non-military means.

Personally I think the assumptions the administration made in Iraq have led to the current situation. I hope that had Iran been the target instead they wouldn't have been as cavalier in their decision making and planning.

I would also hope the adminstration, in this hypothetical war, would exploit any internal factors that could assist our goals, such as encouraging dissent against the theocracy and providing arms where necessary to groups that would need to protect themselves from gov't. crackdowns, to make sure another Tianamen doesn't happen.

[edit on 7/23/2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]

Originally posted by kramtronix
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.

Obviously you have no plans of being in the military .

Originally posted by persian
Jakomo is right.
For 50 years and until iran�s revolution, US been involve in Irans�s internal affairs. You can search on Yahoo under �CIA in Iran�

Better yet do a search on Operation Ajax and Iran. The Brits convinced Eisehower that Mossadeq (a democratically elected leader) was going to turn to the USSR for help (In reality, the brits wanted to protect thier oil concessions) and the CIA orcastrated a coup that placed the Shaw in power. His policies with the help of the CIA trained SAVAK, help bring about the revolution in Iran in 1979. We know how warm and fuzzy things have been since....

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by persian
Jakomo is right.
For 50 years and until iran�s revolution, US been involve in Irans�s internal affairs. You can search on Yahoo under �CIA in Iran�

Better yet do a search on Operation Ajax and Iran. The Brits convinced Eisehower that Mossadeq (a democratically elected leader) was going to turn to the USSR for help (In reality, the brits wanted to protect thier oil concessions) and the CIA orcastrated a coup that placed the Shaw in power. His policies with the help of the CIA trained SAVAK, help bring about the revolution in Iran in 1979. We know how warm and fuzzy things have been since....

Yep, whenever you nationalize US or British interests you can pretty much expect a coup very shortly thereafter.

BTW, love the sig Fred

signature
Oh My God! They Just Killed Ignorance! YOU B*&#$@!#...........

[edit on 22-7-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Obviously you have no plans of being in the military

.

While you make a point, there are obviously problems with that argument if you extrapolate it.

Can someone be against crime in their city without having to join the police department?

Can someone say "I wish I could call someone to put out the fire that's burning my house" without enrolling in the fire academy?

For anyone who wants to have a better understanding as to why Iran might actually HATE the US, check out the George Washington Univeersity online National Security Archive, declassified documents and everything.

People tend to hate you when you overthrow their democratically elected government and install your own.

www.gwu.edu...

Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq. This is a point that was made in my article and other published accounts, but it is strongly confirmed in these documents. In my view, this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate �popular uprising� on behalf of the shah.

They don't hate you because of your "freedoms". they hate you because you treated them like arseholes. Just because you don't know it doesn't make it propaganda.

Hi all! Just my humble opinion here.

I do not think we should attack Iran. We, as a country are stretched thin to the point of bringing back discharged veterans and extending the reservists time. Whilst it is true we could operationally support from Iraq, we do not have the men to put on the ground. And, as everyone knows, the enemy may be weakened from the air, but may only be defeated from the ground. In addition, Taiwan is heating up and we have the nemerable North Koreans, who are just waiting on their master (China) to release their leash, which believe me, if we have an altercation w/ China over Taiwan, China WILL release North Korea so that our forces will be split.

But, let's say it does happen. Who will support us? already the pasted together coalition is falling apart (Philipines left Iraq, other nations are considering). Britain (i.e. Tony Blair) could not politically undertake another hostile takeover of a country. We'd be on our own. But even scarier, we would be weakened to the point of an invasion by multiple countries.

So, again, MHO. Let's stabilize afghanistan and Iraq, pull out, strengthen our borders and internal security, redefine the military for the war we are fighting now and get Bush out of the White House before we all start speaking Chinese.

I believe that the struggle in Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan is all related to Iran, if the government changes in Iran the situation on terrorism would 80% vanish.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by saeediran]

Originally posted by saeediran
I believe that the struggle in Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan is all related to Iran, if the government changes in Iran the situation on terrorism would 80% vanish.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by saeediran]

Actually you are wrong. We have been dragged into this mess. After Iran�s revolution, US convinced Saddam to start the war with Iran. During the 8 years war we have lost more than 600 thousand people and more than half a trillion dollars and of course there is a country with 250+ nukes treating us. Also for the last 25 years we have been called terrorist by US government for not following their rule.

One way or another I feel there will be a war in Iran being as there are terriosts in that country.

If we do not act terroism will spread and innocent peoples lives will be lost.

I feel America needs to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq before fighting any other wars.

I'm not sure about everyone else but I am slightly nervous about Iran they are a stronger country than Iraq, but anyone that says we'd lose the fight is a dummy.

So you are saying that Iranians are terrorist?
Could you provide some info on that, because I have no idea what have we done that made us terrorists.

Again I'll ask the question... how many Iranian civilians would die in a U.S.-led war? How many died in Iraq up to now, and were they all terrorists? And do we call those deaths "collateral damage"?

As for terrorism... a regime change in Iran would have to come from within, not from without. If it comes from without - as in Iraq - it will be at the end of a war where a good amount of Iran's infrastructure will have been destroyed, and a good number of Iranians will hate America for it, hence more terrorists. So war is not the solution.

However, part of this mess is that to be consistent with its expressed policies, the Bush administration is condemned to fight more wars. If it invaded Iraq because that country supported terrorism, had ties to Al-Qaeda and allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, then it follows that it should also invade Iran and Saudi Arabia, who also meet those criteria. If it doesn't, there's a clear inconsistency in policy.

Bush will probably offer nuances to justify invading Iraq while not invading Iran or Saudi Arabia. But wait... Bush doesn't believe in nuances, does he? He calls it flip-flopping...

First off we have to accept the fact the US cannot afford to invade Iran at the moment. We have spent all the cheap money on Iraq and tax cuts so the simple fact is without Nato or the UN a conventional war like we saw in Iraq is simply not an option. I would estimate in 6-8 years we should be in a pretty good financial position to go it alone if we must (assuming we can protect from a major terrorist attack at home).

I have to say I highly doubt we could convince the UN or even Nato to come together on an Iran campaign given the costs involved and our lower standing in the global community. That leaves a hit and run option which Israel has the experience to complete. The US would be well advised to steer clear of a hit and run mission as we may be dragged into a war we cannot afford. Rather the correct strategy would be to provide Israel with anti-missle systems and let them take out the nuclear reactor. At the same time I would like to see the UN press for inspections once again on the off chance we can get them going again.

I would love to see the world come together in a joint effort to fight the war on terror as in the end the world as a whole is going to benefit from this battle and a collective effort is needed for it to be a success. Unfortunately some strategic errors made by the US and the UK have made this a difficult task in the short term.

what is this evidence anyone got a link?

I personally think that it will happen anyway whether there is evidence or not.

saddam's weapon of mass destruction could still be found, the chance is not lost yet. Iranian government is trying to do the best to halt terrorists, as far as I know, but could be wrong. This will explain, whether the US will attack them or not. If the Iranians do nothing to stop terrorists there, then the only choice remains to attack them, following G. Bush's ideas.

Iran has made some very smart moves by making friends with China and Russia. China is experiencing a growth in its industrial sector unequaled in their history. One commodity they need above all else to sustain this is oil. The US now has control of the gas pipelines with the takeover of Afganistan. The US has taken the 2nd largest oil supply on earth with the takeover of Iraq. The US controls the oil supply of Saudia Arabia. And now it is Iran's turn to have it's oil reserves taken over by the US.

Does anyone think Russia......but most importantly China......will allow the US to invade country after country to take over the worlds oil reserves without a fight....? This is not about terrorism.....this is about oil. Since 9-11 how many terrorist attacks have been made againist the US......ZERO

I have to ask who is going to foot the bill of a US invasion of Iran? Where is the money going to come from? See my above post regarding our financial position on this matter. Not even Bush's team would risk the economic well being of our country and the world to halt Iran's goal of producing nuclear weapons when a much cheaper solution is at hand.

Now if the correct strategy of maintaining UN pressure on Iraq rather than a full scale invasion had been taken then we would now be in an excellent position to neutralise this real danger in Iran and would have an excellent chance at getting UN approval as well. BTW before we invaded Iraq oil was flowing at full capacity without the disruptions we are seeing now.

Originally posted by mrdependable
I have to ask who is going to foot the bill of a US invasion of Iran? Where is the money going to come from? See my above post regarding our financial position on this matter. Not even Bush's team would risk the economic well being of our country and the world to halt Iran's goal of producing nuclear weapons when a much cheaper solution is at hand.

Now if the correct strategy of maintaining UN pressure on Iraq rather than a full scale invasion had been taken then we would now be in an excellent position to neutralise this real danger in Iran and would have an excellent chance at getting UN approval as well. BTW before we invaded Iraq oil was flowing at full capacity without the disruptions we are seeing now.

Ummm Bush has pretty much shown that he has no concern aobut the "economic well being of our country"

Wraith

Originally posted by Zzub
Unlike Iraq, Iran has a decent army and air-force. They would put up a heck of a fight compared to the Iraqis. It would be much harder to 'win' there.

I'd have to vote for no.

Iraq was one of the top ten most powerful nations pre-Gulf War, and we took them on with no problems. Don't worry about it.


stupid quote
----------------

"Remember, America - I gave you the internet, and I can take it away." - Al Gore

Originally posted by Zzub
Unlike Iraq, Iran has a decent army and air-force. They would put up a heck of a fight compared to the Iraqis. It would be much harder to 'win' there.

I'd have to vote for no.

In 1990, Iraq was one of the top ten military powers in the world. We took them on with an army two-thirds the size of theirs with no trouble. Don't worry about it.



stupid quote
----------------

"Remember, America - I gave you the internet, and I can take it away." - Al Gore