Will The US Go To War With Iran?

[Studs Terkel]

Just some thoughts on the topic, because I think this president and the people around him are just crazy enough to do so. Especially with the publicized war of words we have been seeing between Bush and Ahmadinejad in the past week or so.

[sodamntired]

Nope...not going to happen.

 

Bush is already the lowest ratings he has had as President, even lower than Nixon's the week before he resigned. More than half the country and most of the world dislikes and distrusts him...plus the size of Iran, the US has lost the war before they even started it.

 

Again, not going to happen.

[Studs Terkel]

Yeah, let's hope so. The only thing is that the American public can be swayed back by the Iranians looking like the aggressor. I really hate to draw the comparison, but Hitler was elected and kept power without having anywhere near the full support of his people. I only bring up the example, because, in the footsteps of Hitler, this president has attacked two countries so far. Then he goes out and says just this week that he would go after Iran "insurgents" in Iraq. But I always thought that we were fighting the "insurgents" for the last 3+ years, so why make that statement now? He just really seems to be egging Ahmadinejad on and trying to push him to make one false move that will be reason enough to attack him. But, I really, really hope that I am wrong here.

[sodamntired]

well, it appears the american people have finally woke up. there was a march of tens of thousands of people on Capitol Hill recently, all because Bush wanted to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. If he announced that the US was going to start attacking Iran, the outrage would be immense by the american people.

 

and also, I feel that if the united states was attacked again, and Bush felt that he could blame it on the Iranians as the aggressor, I can be safe to say that the majority of Americans would be PISSED OFF at the president and his cabinet, that he would allow the country to come under attack AGAIN.

Edited January 28, 2007 by sodamntired

[ecnarf]

Their heads say no, but their hearts say yes.

[Hyphnip]

I voted yes. I think that Bush would like to do it. I could see him trying. but I could also see a mob breaking into the white house and hanging him before he can give the order.

[supercanuk]

From what i've heard he's already moving in more ships to be able to have a quick strike capability on Iran. Also, its worth noting that Ahmadinejad actually offered to HELP the U.S. get control of Iraq, in fact he's been offering his help for a while and the only thing that Iran has been asking in return is to stop using bully tactics like threats of attack, and only recently have they added that they want to pursue nuclear power for civilian use. The U.S. has totally ignored their, i would say, fairly even handed gesture and the U.S. could probably use the help in getting control of the situation (Not that i really want the U.S. there anyway, but the help of another Muslim country could really help). In fact, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty which states in the agreement that producing nuclear power for civilian use is completely within the rights of the signatory state. So long as it is for civilian use theres no problems but several members of the U.N but most loudly, the U.S. has summarily decided that they wont ALLOW Iran to produce civilian nuclear power. It's quite contradictory, and really gets at the heart of the matter, American hegemony here is the realy problem, and I dont think a strike either by Bush or by another president on Iran is unlikely.

 

Edit: I am not disregarding the fact that Iran and Iraq were at war and had quite a bad relationship for some time, but they could probably help with the Shi'a population, in Iraq since Iran is dominated by Shi'a muslims.

Also worth noting, the U.S. does not necessarily have to attack Iran directly. They can use a proxie state or what amounts to a client state and have them attack Iran.

Edited January 28, 2007 by supercanuk

[juanpe]

I think that Democrats (and the rest of the world) won't let the US get involved in a "second Iraq" kinda war... starting with the Americans, they are too angry at Bush to trust him again with such a serious issue

 

and I don't think Democrats would do something like that after how much they are critizicing US's policy on Iraq

[Moonlight_Graham]

war with Iran would be a nuclear bomb for the Republican party.

[sodamntired]

if Bush decclared a second war within his final 2 years, he would have to reinstate a draft, and it would be a very very veeeerrryyyy long time before another Republican was elected President.

[Matt]

Most people have short memories when it comes to past indiscretions in politics, so it could be no time at all before there is another Republican president.

[bishopx]

Just based on some of the comments yesterday and this morning, from some of the experts, this may be inevitable...personally, I think all of this shit needs to stop now...Iraq, Afganistan, Iran....it's like the same fucking vicious cicle every twenty years. We're learning Afganistan, what the Russians learned 25 years ago...Our troubles with Iran 30 years ago were started by a republican president, and dumped on a democratic president...

 

If we wanted to find Bin Laden bad enough, we would have...he's wandering around the fucking desert with a goddamned dialisys machine...what the fuck

 

If we get a strong enough democratic president, it will be very hard to get a republican back in quickly...The Republicans, are suffering from what the Democrats have been suffering from the last two elections...a series failure to build and establish strong future candidates...in Football terms, they have no depth on the bench...

 

I think the time is right for change...but the people have to be prepared to work for it...all those kids need to come home...some of the war crimes that have been committed by those soldiers...how many would have done these types of things if they were home...war and seperation from one's loved one's for long periods of time, breeds contempt...and is major part of the things that are happening there. They are being killed by an enemy they can't see...think about the psychological impact of that on someone barely old enough to vote.

 

I'm not condoning any of the acts committed, but I think that a good portion of the blame lands on a government that put them in the predicaments they're in, and do very little to help them with it, especially after they come home.

[Guest jsunC]

I can't see it happening... But on the other hand, the 3 stooges control what is going to happen, so there is a possibility

[Studs Terkel]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/29/us.iran.ap/index.html

 

The problem that I see is that Bush will use his presidential authority to authorize air strikes in Iran, which will most likely include bombing their nuclear sites. This will be brought on just by the US saying that Iran is involved in troops being killed in Iraq. As long as that rhetoric keeps up, we will, more likely than not, commence air strikes in Iran if only for a couple of days. From there, things will prolly only go downhill. The idea will probably look a lot like the "shock and awe" plan that was set upon Iraq at the start of the war. I'm sure that the hopes we have, if we were to commence air strikes, would be that we create enough turmoil and havoc that we could also cause an uprising and regime change to take place. But weigh that against the negatives and any reasonable human being would probably come to the conclusion that that logic just don't work. However, I don't think we are fortunate enough to have reasonable people anywhere in this administration.

[Guest jsunC]

It's sort of ironic, people that were afraid of the 'terrorist' threat a couple of years ago are now afraid of what illogical action their government might take in dealing with Iran

[Studs Terkel]

You know what I love about the "terrorist" threat? There really is no description of what a terrorist is. A couple days ago, I read a news article that 5 people in Britain had been arrested for "terrorist" charges. The article had no indication of what those wrongful activities may have included, probably because nobody really knows. The same thing goes for any of those that have been held in America on similar charges. The only good thing I can say is at least they don't have Thought Police. Yet.....

[Guest jsunC]

They pretty much just make it up as they go along, it pisses more people off this way

[supercanuk]

They pretty much just make it up as they go along, it pisses more people off this way

lol It's also a great way to control a domestic population.

 

A war with Iran could prove to have serious consequences down the road, as we have been able to see with Iraq, serious destabilization seems to be a breeding ground for extreamists. Something that ought to be included in any wager for war or against it.

People who know me know i am dead set against all of these wars, but that said is there anyone in NF that want the U.S. to go to war with Iran? And if so, why?

[no yu begin wher i end]

All this posturing against Iran is a bullshit smokescreen. Politicians do it all the time. Remember the bruhaha about man going to Mars a few years ago? Now that the shit bricks are raining down harder than ever on the GOP, they need another common enemy to rail against now that Iraq has gone stale for them.

[no yu begin wher i end]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1434540.ece

 

US generals

[Studs Terkel]

Yeah, I'd be pretty sure that nobody would want to go to war with Iran. The thing is that I think a majority of the American people could be duped into that yet again, maybe not today, but say somewhere down the line with a different Republican president at the helm. As long as we are being threatened because the "terrorists" would love to kill us and our families and fight us in the streets of New York, people will continue to be afraid and do irrational things. Lot of good that threat of Commies in San Francisco was about 40 years ago. Although San Francisco does have a "liberal" mayor. Could those war hawks have known what they were talking about?? What a load of crap.