Should the world form a colliation to attack Iran

[Raziaar]

heh after all this time you still think I have a personal grudge against bush ..you havent been paying attention raziaar

Whaaaaa? <chuckles> I never thought you had a personal grudge against bush.

 

[CptStern]

Whaaaaa? <chuckles> I never thought you had a personal grudge against bush.

?

pained and upset that people like you hate his guts

what else could that mean?

He didn't lie--it was just bad intelligence

I disagree ..he/his administration lied several times

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm
(the video was taken a few months before 9/11 ..planning for invasion of iraq began on 9/11)

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/9327
(from 60 minutes video: retired CIA operative (highest ranking in europe) discusses how bush selctively manipulated evidence in the lead up to the war)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
{minutes taken from a meeting between bush and blair: they reveal intelligence will be "fixed" to support the case for war)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Top anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke says Rumsfeld wanted to find some way of pinning 9/11 on saddam

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=77648&highlight=commission
(long story short: this info was crucial to pre-war statements in front of UN Security concil and was the strongest case against saddam ..powell has since said that speech was the lowpoint of his career)

 

[Sulkdodds]

In a way, the whole 'imperialism' thing is in a sense an organic process, carried forward/generated by the society gestalt, regardless of who's at the front of it. In some ways it's similar to the process of 'cumulative radicalisation' in Nazi Germany - but the similarity lies in the fact CR was the cumulative result of the movements of a system, rather than any comparison with the actual regime it happened in.

Also, Lyndon Johnson was very good, and would have been remembered that way if he wasn't A. shit at foreign policy and B. trapped between liberals who felt he was too warlike and conservatives that wanted him to nuke Vietnam or whatever.

 

[CptStern]

yes I agree Sulky; they often work independently of whatever party is in power ..they're sometimes thrust into the forfront when power groups like the neo-cons enter office

..Eisenhower talked about the rise in the industrial-military complex that led to imperialism in this speech

the arms manufacturers/military have a stake in perpetual war; it's in their best interests


oh and LBJ killed kennedy

 

[Ome_Vince]

Because whether or not the President does anything illegal, he has a responsibility to be an example for the rest of the country. Aldutery might not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right.

Last time i checked a president's job was running a country, not being "Mr Perfect" in his/her social life.
Which is what sickens me about modern politics. This is everywhere, not only in the states. These days its not on how "good you are for the country in youre political ideals" its how many perfect smiles you can make, and pictures taken with sick puppies and old people.

Bill lied yes, but thats after an official investigation took place, i found it incredible that so much money and effort got put into him admitting he was screwing Monica.
Official investigation and hearings on if he screwed this woman???
To me that was the joke of the century..
It felt like there were "forces" trying to nail him for whatever they could find, but o well.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I blame this guy and his aggressive foreign policy.


Still far from perfect--the Bay of Pigs debacle was #8 on a recent list of the top US presidential blunders. Source.

God I hope so!

I know, that's why I put "good" in quotes.

Is America heading for imperialism? Doesn't look like it. At least, not at this moment in time. The changing of the President would make all the difference.

 

[CptStern]

It felt like there were "forces" trying to nail him for whatever they could find, but o well.

there were

watch this, it explains it pretty well ..specifically in this interview about the neo-conservatives attack on Clinton (whitewater, lweinsky):

Behind this were an extraordinary barrage of allegations against Clinton that were obsessing the media. These included stories of sexual harassment; stories that Clinton and his wife were involved in Whitewater, a corrupt property deal; stories that they had murdered their close friend Vince Foster; and stories that Clinton was involved in smuggling drugs from a small airstrip in Arkansas. But none of these stories were true. All of them had been orchestrated by a young group of neoconservatives, who were determined to destroy Clinton. The campaign was centered on a small right-wing magazine called the American Spectator, which had set up what was called the “Arkansas Project” to investigate Clinton’s past life. The journalist at the center of this project was called David Brock.


INTERVIEWER : Did those promoting these stories know that this was not true, that none of these stories were true?

BROCK : They did not care.

INTERVIEWER : Why not?

BROCK : Because they were having a devastating effect. So why stop? It was terrorism. Political terrorism.

INTERVIEWER : But you were one of the agents.

BROCK : Absolutely. Absolutely.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I disagree ..he/his administration lied several times

I thought my little straight face at the end of my sentence made the sentence seem like the sarcasm that it was, but in retrospect, it doesn't.

For the record, my previous comment was sarcastic. Of course he lied and the whole world knows it. Whether they choose to believe it is another story altogether...

 

[gick]

But make no mistake, things will not change with a different superpower in charge. Nobody likes monopolies. But empires fall, monopolies crumble, and someone inevitably moves into their place and the cycle continues...

Today's Empires, Tomorrow's Ashes eh?

 

[CptStern]

I thought my little straight face at the end of my sentence made the sentence seem like the sarcasm that it was, but in retrospect, it doesn't.

For the record, my previous comment was sarcastic. Of course he lied and the whole world knows it. Whether they choose to believe it is another story altogether...

oops sorry


does that frowny face in your post mean you're sad ..cuz I dont like the way he's looking at me with his ambigious frown

 

[Kadayi]

When the Iranian public voted in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they thought that they were getting a moderate leader (one better equipped to deal with the west), unfortunately no sooner had he got in than he announced that he had a direct hotline to Allah and everything he said was the word of god (and therefore not to be questioned).

Someone likened him to Bush with respect to his idiocy and he certainly holds to the comparision. Fact of the matter is though, even if Iran did have nuclear weapons I doubt very much whether the palestinians, egyptians and other surrounding nations would be particularly impressed with them irradiating the holy land for a thousand years. Nor would I expect the Iranian public be particularly impressed by the nuclear carpet bombing they would recieve about 10 minutes later curtosy of the US.

The truth to the elevated status of Iran on the danger front is more to do with Irans intention/desire to sell their Oil in Euros as well as dollars, an action that would dramatically weaken the worth of the american dollar overseas, and could bankrupt the USA due to it's large overseas debts (if you want oil, you need dollars atm). Iraq was approved by the UN (despite US protests) to be allowed to sell it's Oil in Euros, and shortly afterwards Bush and his cohorts drummed up an excuse to invade them.

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

 

[CptStern]

I think you nailed all the important issues in that one post, Kadayi. Good post :thumbs:

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yes, that was an excellent post. Another added to the intelligent list!

 

[Kadayi]

Thank you, I've been following this stuff for quite some time. I seriously recommend that people read the energybulletin article because it's very inciteful about why the US invaded Iraq, and why Bush might need an excuse to invade Iran. Personally I think that with two countries presently under occupation, and the ongoing problem of the sunni insurgents, trying to take on Iran in any kind of war would be stretching the american war machine to the limits.

 

[CptStern]

dear god:

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His article, “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,” suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:



The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

 

[Kadayi]

Yeah, it's disturbing reading CPt. But my brass tacks way of thinking is, if they nuked Iran...how would they get the oil out (Iran sits on a quarter of the worlds production). I don't think a nuclear option is a goer in those terms (although militarily it's probably less costly).

 

[CptStern]

ya but control is always more profitable/forward thinking:

"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region

summary of Rebuilding america's Defenses a 90 page document:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm







the nukes are low yeild and are only meant to shut off access to underground nuke programs ...not destroy power plants, just the underground testing facilities

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

if they nuked Iran...how would they get the oil out

LolFT.

No good can come of an Iran invasion.

 

[Steve]

Last time i checked a president's job was running a country, not being "Mr Perfect" in his/her social life.
Which is what sickens me about modern politics. This is everywhere, not only in the states. These days its not on how "good you are for the country in youre political ideals" its how many perfect smiles you can make, and pictures taken with sick puppies and old people.

Bill lied yes, but thats after an official investigation took place, i found it incredible that so much money and effort got put into him admitting he was screwing Monica.
Official investigation and hearings on if he screwed this woman???
To me that was the joke of the century..
It felt like there were "forces" trying to nail him for whatever they could find, but o well.

Well, you see...it's hard for people to trust a person who can't properly control his personal life to run a country. I'm not saying it's not possible for him to be able to keep the two separate, but it's hard for people to trust someone like that.

 

[Sebastian]

You should read up about the illuminati and how bush is just another puppet for the satanic secret society. Check out my link to the illuminati movie in the movies section.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Satanic secret society?....

@Kadayi Polokov
Really interesting article, does shed some more light on the "oil" accusations.

 

[bbson john]

Satanic secret society is just another conspiracy theory.

 

[Kadayi]

ya but control is always more profitable/forward thinking:

summary of Rebuilding america's Defenses a 90 page document:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

the nukes are low yeild and are only meant to shut off access to underground nuke programs ...not destroy power plants, just the underground testing facilities

If the US did start using nukes in the middle east, even in a low level manner as you suggest, I think the rammifications in terms of how the rest of the first world viewed the action would be of extreme significance. The cost would far outway the gains.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If the US did start using nukes in the middle east, even in a low level manner as you suggest, I think the rammifications in terms of how the rest of the first world viewed the action would be of extreme significance. The cost would far outway the gains.

Thats something they'd have to think about. [The Bush administration]

If a war did break out, it would'nt be this early because it'd capture on the momentum of the other two wars. It would rally more insurgent resistance against American occupation, and it would also show that the administration was predictable.

They would either wait another year or so, which would still be riding on the coat tails of the past two previous wars, or they'd make bad terms with Iran so when the next administration took office theoretically, they'd be battling an already enraged country.

 

[<RJMC>]

holy shit is iran use nuclear weapons I think violence will be a option

but seriously it will be too ****ed up if that happens

 

[SAJ]

For all you armchair generals out there, I have a question; why is it being taken at face value that Iran is building nuclear weapons?

Under Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) agree to forego nuclear weapons, and in exchange, are given an "inalienable right to develop research, produce and use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination." NNWS also have "the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of
equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy."

To date Iran's production of nuclear fuel has not exceeded the 5% U-235 that is commonly used in nuclear reactors all over the world (470 of them to be precise). Weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to at least 80% U-235. The current furor concerns acquisition by Iran of equipment that enables it to increase purity from a mere 3.5% to 4.5%,
well within the limits of civilian use. Iran has also said that it is happy to allow the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor their adherence to their production of nuclear fuel in order to assure the world that they are not in violation.

By way of balanced compensation to non-nuclear signatories under the Treaty, the Nuclear Weapons States commit under Article VI of the NPT to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

So far there is zero evidence of any activity beyond what the Iranians are are permitted under the terms of the NPT.
In fact it is the other signitories to the NPT that are in breach of -at least- the spirit of the agreement, namely that nuclear powers will actively pursue the elimination of their own nuclear weapon stockpiles.
Now there's a motive for a coalition of the willing, if ever I saw one.

 

[CptStern]

heh Iraq was a signatory to the NPT, a lot of good that did him

 

[kirovman]

You know that Centrifuges are the same machines like Roger Moore nearly died in, in Moonraker.

 

[CptStern]

didnt he use magnetic waves from his Rolex to zap the nuke before it detonated? ..it must have been scalar waves masquerading as magnetic waves (scalar waves hadnt been invented yet :O )

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The major problems I have with a Coalition to invade Iran is this:

1. During this, third gulf war, we've lost more allies of our "Coalition" to insurgent hostage takings and IED attacks then out of all of our past, yet most recent conflicts.
2. Does the world really want to invade Iran? This is something people should think about. Is the world really unified in the idea Iran really poses a threat? Should a coalition be "forced", or "formed" is the question I'd like to ask Bush myself.
3. Finally, Coalition is just another cheap word for, "America's attempting to share the responsibility." I'm not usually like this, but I have to attempt to preserve judgement on this. Lives are at stake, and they should'nt be thrown around or disrespected.

 

[Gorgon]

any invasion to Iran, means the end of oil. Iran could destroy all gulf Oil fields, including the Iraqies. which leads to global economic Crisis

Iran is not Iraq, the reason Iraq was easy to invade is because the whole country is against Seddam, Iranian love their leader/s and I read on Aljezzera site, at least 60000 man/women just signed up for S.B....and the number could rise to millions if this is real

invading Iran = 10000s of American soldiers dead within the first few weeks if not more, America will loss this war at the end

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Iran is not Iraq, the reason Iraq was easy to invade is because the whole country is against Seddam, Iranian love their leader/s and I read on Aljezzera site, at least 60000 man/women just signed up for S.B....and the number could rise to millions if this is real

What? We're to hold our breath at 60,000? Numbers don't pose threats, Gorgon.

invading Iran = 10000s of American soldiers dead within the first few weeks if not more, America will loss this war at the end

Dissent intended to burden the thought of victory against Radical Iran, nothing more.

 

[Ome_Vince]

10k Casualties?
American Generals would just sit on some ships firing missiles and launching bombing runs, until they could send troops (everything's a pile of smoke).
Only Iran's after-war insurgency would cost alot of US casualties.