Will US attack Iran?

I agree, but I retain a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, enough people will remember that this is the same bunch that sold the Iraq blunder.
Dono
 
It always was in there focus. We need for the democrats or any other liberal party to take the house so we can stop this madness. Impeachment proceedings, against Bush then Chaney, hopefully will start the first week of january 2007. The only reason after 25 years that the Iranians are seeking nukes is because of the invasion of Iraq. Bush himself has created this monster with his idea of preemptive war.
 
well if there really is a problem, we should fix it regardless of who created it. The question is is this a security risk to us? In my opinion Iraq wasn't, but others thought otherwise (from what I've seen so far it seems they really weren't). Even if Bush got us into this mess, he still neeRAB to get us out of it if Iran really is a legitimate threat to national security.
 
The use of nukes wouldn't be acceptable to the majority of Americans nor our "so-called" allies. It would most definitely alienate the US from the rest of the world further and send a message to other nuclear powers " accelerate development to defend against an insane US government".
 
The US won't have to attack Iran because Iran will find a way to back down its nuclear weapons program while saving face. The yahoo in charge may have been one of the Iran Embassy Hostage incident terrorists but he has since seen that the US doesn't play softball with terrorists as Jimmy Carter did in the late 70's.
Just as the Russians told Iran back in the late 70's, essentially "screw with us and we'll turn your country into a gigantic parking lot", GW won't play any games today. And the fact that our military is already sitting next door means that thge "Wrath of Allah" is just minutes from Tehran's leaders' doorsteps. :wow:
 
The smart thing to do would be to NOT attack Iran. They don't pose a threat. they don't have nukes, or the ability to create them, and the best estimate of when they MAY have that ability is 10-20 years. We have no evidence that they are pursuing nukes at all.

Even the IAEA report concludes that they "cannot guarantee that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons". There is a HUGE difference between that and "there is evidence that they are pursuing nukes" or "We believe they are after nukes".

There IS NO military solution for Iran....especially with 130,000 of our troops on the ground within range of their ballistic missiles.

I think that we will probably end up attacking, and using nukes in doing so. The Bush administration has worked VERY hard to convince Americans that Iran presents a clear and present danger, using many of the same strategies they used in the lead up to the Iraq deception. They are manufacturing "evidence" out of thin air.

Most Iranian C&C bunkers are buried deep enought hat we simply cannot get them with conventional weapons. If we are going to go after them, we have to rely on a nuclear solution. So much rhetoric, propoganda, and BS has now been pushed by the shrubs that there is little choice left. If Iran continues to demand their right to enrich uranium, and we do not attack, most of the world will see it as admitting that we are powerless against Iran.
 
I've never heard of a game of hardball lasting 400+ days. Carter was a weenie.
Reagan even put the fear of God into the USSR when he quipped "the bombing will begin in 5 minutes".:xgood:
 
Assuming that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons purely for the purpose of preventing a potential US attack, then a deal similar to the one made with Cuba might be a reasonable approach to take. Namely, on our side, we make a long-term pledge not to attack Iran for which, on their side, they promise not to develop nuclear weapons and allow full inspection of their facilities. Both sides save face in such a deal and achieve their main objectives - some relief from fear of a US attack (on the Iranian side) and relief of concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons (on our side).
 
With regard to Iran and Reagan, I don't believe we were discussing Russia, 1500 missiles illegally shipped to Iran for the publicity of seven hostages released was playing hardball? Thanks to our massive ego, we've vastly underestimated our opponents in every conflict since WW2 right through Iraq. I don't think Iran will be any different. The US public always enRAB up holding the bag every time some politician waves a flag, but many Americans are still naive enough to respond with blind patriotism even though those very politicians have brought us to the brink of financial disaster, removed important civil liberties, flooded us with media supported propaganda and ruined other nations. That's the American way? What a joke.
 
The bush administration has thus far not shown a great deal of concern for public or international opinion.

Any covert nuclear facilities Iran has are almost certainly under ground. Their enitre C&C is underground. As many of 80% of their ballistic missiles (the ones they can use to wipe out every american base in Iraq in 28 minutes) are stored underground. There is no point to attacking Iran if we do not take thier underground facilities, and the majority of thier underground facilities are deep enough that a conventional strike woudl be futile.

I knwo there used to be a plan to take their bunkers through covert special ops activity. Nobody ever really took it seriously (mostly because it was impossible) but it was the best we could come up with at the time.
 
How is it absurd? An attack on Iran is certainly on the horizon. Any such attack would be absolutly worthless without taking out their bunker and underground facilities. Most of those facilities in Iran are heavily enough fortified that there is no convnetional solution on them. If we want to take those facilities out, the only option is a nuclear bunker buster.

The iranians have been putting everything they want to keep underground for 20 years. They actually have underground air strips. This is a country that has essentially been actively preparing for a showdown with the US for years, and done it well.

If we opt for military intervention without the use of nukes to break those bunkers, the military intervention is worthless, little more than a PR stunt.
 
This has always confused me. Why is Carter, who essentially told the Iranians "I am not giving you a damn thing" viewed as weak on Iran, but Reagan, who gave them everything they wanted and more, viewed as a hardliner?
 
I rarely watch Fox News, but Sunday I flipped to it and stayed there. I came back at random intervals throughout the day. The whole day seemed dedicated to talking about attacking Iran. If they weren't talking about the nuclear "threat" they were talking about how they allegedly supply the insurgents with bombs.

At one point it got really ridiculous. They brought on a retired general or something like that. They showed a large graphic with the map of Iran. Then they put little radioactivity symbols all over it where there were supposed nuclear plants or facilities of some sort. So there was Iran with little atomic symbols all over it. Iran was practically radioactive. Then the general started talking about how the air strike would go. He pointed to the North and up popped little pictures of B2 bombers on top of Iran. Then there were little pictures of F117's and then there were F18's and then there were B1's. By the end of it there was a map of Iran covered in radioactivity symbols and all that was covered with pictures of our warplanes on top of that. Then they quickly cut to break cutting off the part where any actual strategy was going to be discussed.

I think the whole point was to get people used to the idea that we are going to bomb Iran. Bomb bomb Iran. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran. Take my hand. Oh, bomb Iran. They'll be rockin and a reelin.

I think that it's inevitable. The general wisdom is that we can't afford to let Iran open its oil exchange for very long.
 
400+ days of doing nothing except one feebly botched attempt to rescue the hostages ring a bell? :xbanghead

And Reagan's reputation for being a hardliner had nothing to do with Iran. The Iran crisis was over the day he took office. His reputation came from his dealings with the Russians. :xgood:
 
If the mullahs say that nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic then I'd believe them. Think about what it would mean for them to say that, then for their people to find out that they were lying the whole time and going against Islam. I think they are telling the truth about that. I don't really believe they have a nuclear weapons program.

Of course, you'll say I'm crazy, but you won't be able to find any evidence that they are indeed seeking nuclear weapons.



I remember him playing intense hardball with them. It was Reagan who made backroom deals with them and appeased them for years. Then he went ahead and sold them arms to appease them even more.

Reagan is the original appeaser. Carter did not back down to these lunatics and he paid the price for it.
 
Back
Top