Bomb, bomb, Iran

[FMBI]

Uh-huh.

 

This is widely considered so insane that it was dumped by the media as a viable option a few months ago, and even Fallon quitting didn't cause more than a small murmur.

 

And yet, here we are, with Russian news (Which, sadly enough, reported more accurately on the Iraq invasion and war than American news) basically stating that it's only a matter of time. GG, Bush. You might have !@#$%^&*ed us all, but you still managed to slip in a nice surprise at the end.

[JDS]

go figure eh... makes you wonder wtf else goes on ..

[NBVegita]

As you would in America, take something coming from Russia with a grain of salt.

 

I'm not denying nor promoting the accuracy of the report, but remember the United States is not the only nation in the world to use the tool of propaganda.

[X`terrania]

I tried telling Freak this, you'd have to basically see it for yourself. There's no way the states could build up a massive army on the border while they're trying to deal with the rebels in Iraq still.

[FMBI]

X, all you did was continually say "have you seen this yourself", which is one of the worst arguments ever. I haven't seen the chinese police killing tibetans, but I know they're doing it.

 

And Veg - I am aware that state-run media is something to be careful with, I had a 45-minute argument about this last night. However, as I said, Russian news was more reliable in 03, why shouldn't they be now?

 

And, X, one more thing -

 

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

 

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

 

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

 

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

 

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

 

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

 

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

 

Sounds like they're already building up a "massive army on the border."

[NBVegita]

The whole idea that Russia is not happy with us right now. In fact the whole concept that they basically despise the missile defence system we're trying to put in europe (which is a different topic all together), makes me very leary as to the accuracy of the reports.

 

Right now the United States is struggling to field enough soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, I would really like to know where this massive army has come from, cause they sure as !@#$%^&* ain't U.S. soldiers.

 

Plus in order for us to declare war on Iran we would need the support of both the house and the senate. Even though they overwhelming supported the war in Iraq, there would be no way in !@#$%^&* that they would approve war on Iran. In which case if the President tried to order an invasion despite being rejected, he would be immediately removed, then our current VP would be removed for the same reason and Nancy Pelosi would halt all attacks.

 

The concept of the U.S. waging war with Iran isn't a feasible idea in the near future.

[FMBI]

To use my earlier example, again - the US is permanently pissed at China over various issues, so we're reporting the Tibetan !@#$%^&*. Doesn't mean it isn't true, does it?

 

And anyway, I guess both of you missed something. The "massive army" isn't necessarily going to consist of troops, in fact, it's unlikely it would be more than spec ops and marines. While it's theoretically possible we could send in more (we do have troops on the arabian peninsula, after all), it's more likely that this would consist of air strikes, cruise missile launches from the navy, and perhaps !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inations. That's all Bush has been pushing for the whole time, anyway.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aileron]

Look, if Bush is going the '!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*ination' route I'm all for it. The world needs a middle ground between useless talking and war. Raids/threats/!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inations are good things if those actions prevent a large scale war. Particularly in the case of terrorist leaders who don't have bases and live in civilian houses in civilian neighborhoods, assassination is the easiest and cleanest way to deal with them. To me, it seems like the reason why Al Queda has survived as long as it has is because its greatest vulnerability is something we refuse to capitalize upon.

 

 

Veg, I'll admit he has a point. The US has one big army on one side of Iran in Iraq, and another big army on the other side of Iran in Afghanistan. Those armies could easily be diverted away from insurgent hunting for a short time, and additionally taking out Iran would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the insurgents in Iraq. Additionally having a continuous land m!@#$%^&* would make the process more efficient, and also add some more options in terms of nation building strategies.

 

 

Still, with all the funding Iran is giving to the radical Shi'ite groups, I wouldn't be surprised if the US military is trying to make a dragnet along the border.

 

 

Still, I wouldn't trust the Russian government with anything. The main reason they were against action in Iraq is because they were making lots of money in the Oil for Food scam.

[Wild Luck]

Look, if Bush is going the '!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*ination' route I'm all for it. The world needs a middle ground between useless talking and war. Raids/threats/!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inations are good things if those actions prevent a large scale war. Particularly in the case of terrorist leaders who don't have bases and live in civilian houses in civilian neighborhoods, assassination is the easiest and cleanest way to deal with them. To me, it seems like the reason why Al Queda has survived as long as it has is because its greatest vulnerability is something we refuse to capitalize upon.

 

 

Veg, I'll admit he has a point. The US has one big army on one side of Iran in Iraq, and another big army on the other side of Iran in Afghanistan. Those armies could easily be diverted away from insurgent hunting for a short time, and additionally taking out Iran would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the insurgents in Iraq. Additionally having a continuous land m!@#$%^&* would make the process more efficient, and also add some more options in terms of nation building strategies.

 

 

Still, with all the funding Iran is giving to the radical Shi'ite groups, I wouldn't be surprised if the US military is trying to make a dragnet along the border.

 

 

Still, I wouldn't trust the Russian government with anything. The main reason they were against action in Iraq is because they were making lots of money in the Oil for Food scam.

 

 

war only produces more war, do you think the whole arab comunity will just sit and watch USA attack IRAN for no reason. There are war protocols, if they want to attack iran they have to declare war to it, and if they do it i think all the arabs will unite, not to mention the KOREANS who are just waiting for an excuse to attack USA.

[NBVegita]

I think you all missed this entire part of my post:

 

Plus in order for us to declare war on Iran we would need the support of both the house and the senate. Even though they overwhelming supported the war in Iraq, there would be no way in !@#$%^&* that they would approve war on Iran. In which case if the President tried to order an invasion despite being rejected, he would be immediately removed, then our current VP would be removed for the same reason and Nancy Pelosi would halt all attacks.

 

The concept of the U.S. waging war with Iran isn't a feasible idea in the near future.

 

To use my earlier example, again - the US is permanently pissed at China over various issues, so we're reporting the Tibetan !@#$%^&*. Doesn't mean it isn't true, does it?

 

Note how whats happening in Tibet is all over the news GLOBALLY. Russia (appears) to be the only country reporting this?

 

Also we only have around 2500 (recorded) soldiers in the middle east outside of Iraq and Afghan.

 

The "massive army" isn't necessarily going to consist of troops, in fact, it's unlikely it would be more than spec ops and marines.

 

lol? Since when are marines and special ops still not considered infantry?

 

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,"

 

Hard to have a successful ground operation with a small number of soldiers on the ground.

[jacob hunter!]

USA pwns other countries ezzzz

[FMBI]

Wild Luck, Iran and the Arabs have more differences than they do connections - if we took out Iran, they'd probably cheer (as long as they were certain it was going to stay down, that is).

 

Veg, the point is still that the US is heavily pushing the Tibetan thing, as always, because it makes China uncomfortable. Other countries are reporting on it, but note that on the one hand, Russia and China's asian allies are condemning the Tibetans, while on the other hand US media is putting a lot of attention into human rights abuses. Obviously even on such a widely noticed topic, serious differences of scale occur. And when you get to something more divisive like this, it's going to be even worse.

 

Uhh, "troops" generally means the average, sorta-trained guy on the ground. Under that definition, the marines and spec ops are not "troops", because their training level is (or, in the case of marines, can be) much higher than that. They're also far more effective because of "esprit de corps", better equipment, and more intensive support from higher-ups.

 

So if you look at the situation : We have 20,000 highly trained people in Afghanistan, we have fighter pilots in the gulf, we have a lot of backup in the other countries (And I applaud you for pointing out the 'reported' part) - we have all that's necessary to pull off an attack on Iran. Not an occupation, but that is not what Bush would want anyway. He might be re!@#$%^&*ed, but even he has to see that when we have to recruit 50,000 more army troops just to keep it from imploding, we can't take over another 70 million people.

 

And lastly : Since when does a ground operation have to be big? The Soviets took over Afghanistan with Spetsnaz, then followed it up with larger forces. The US is in a far better position than that right now.

 

 

I don't think we'll ever see an occupation, as I said, but as far as a spec-ops, air strike, assassination attack? That seems very likely and possible.

[Aileron]

That definition of "troop" is not in any dictionary, though I understand what you mean. You mean to say that there are enough elite units of the US military operating in the area that they probably could invade Iran, make a big mess, and leave it for the Iranians to clean up as long as no large-scale occupation is attempted.

 

I agree. Note that there is a difference between "could" and "want to".

 

 

I'd say however that while the "could" is true, you cannot prove the "want to". You don't know George Bush. All you know about him is what the media tells you he thinks like.

 

I don't know him either, but I do know this: I attended one of his live campaign speeches in 2004. It was a three hour speech, during which he honestly made articulate well thought out arguments for his previous actions and future plans. Overall, I'd say for every 1 minute he spent stuttering, he spent 59 making truly intellectual and well articulated statements, and he made a very good argument for the invasion of Iraq, much better than any of mine in fact. However, the reporting in the local news about the speech highlighted the stuttering, didn't pick up on any of the nuances in his statements, and in general portrayed him as the stereotypical Bush we've seen in the media this whole time.

 

I can't say that I know that the media has been deliberately portraying him this way all the time, but I do know they have done it at least once. I also know that he did not make the decision to invade Iraq lightly, and I'd expect that he won't make any rash decisions with Iran either.

[NBVegita]

Plus in order for us to declare war on Iran we would need the support of both the house and the senate. Even though they overwhelming supported the war in Iraq, there would be no way in !@#$%^&* that they would approve war on Iran. In which case if the President tried to order an invasion despite being rejected, he would be immediately removed, then our current VP would be removed for the same reason and Nancy Pelosi would halt all attacks.

 

Please respond to how the aforementioned situation would be cir!@#$%^&*vented.

 

As for Tibet I was pointing out that regardless of what side you are on, the ENTIRE WORLD is broadcasting it. If the U.S. were truly to be am!@#$%^&*ing forces near the Iran border and there was a possibility of an invasion/attack, you sure as !@#$%^&* know the ENTIRE WORLD would be broadcasting it.

 

The Argument really isn't about our ability to perform an attack on Iran, !@#$%^&* we could launch a massive organized attack on any country in the world by 8 A.M. tomorrow morning, the argument moreso is the plausability of such an event occuring.

 

In a country with an economy boarding recession, with a president approval under 30, a congress approval in the low 20's, with levels of anti-war sentiments of the like not seen since the vietnam war, I would place my entire future on the line to say that the house and the senate would never come close (under the current cir!@#$%^&*stances) to ordering/approving war with Iran.

 

That is the beauty of our democracy, which the russian article conveniently does not mention, the representatives of the people decide if we go to war or not, not the pentagon.

[SeVeR]

What if Bush used the excuse of "Iran has supplied weapons to our enemy, and therefore they have entered into this pre-existing war". I don't know if that would work. Also do they need to declare war in order to blow up a few military/nuclear installations in Iran?

[Aileron]

No, they wouldn't. Bush can deploy federal forces for 90 days and national guard forces indefinitely. Considering how Iraq fell in about a month, it certainly is possible.

 

(And before you go whining about how much power the presidency has, this is less than what the founding fathers intended. They understood that for certain things you need a single executive making decisions.)

 

And veg, all those things are a result of people whining too much. One thing about whiners though is that they are generally too lazy to oppose something for real.

[AstroProdigy]

Aileron your wrong on Iran being a sponsor of insurgents. In fact Iran has it's hand in just about every faction of Iraq (except for Al Qaeda). Maliki and his Dawa party was exiled to Iran and Syria until they returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that's part of the government is also supported by Iran. In fact Iran and the US are both betting on Maliki because Sadr is an actual Iraqi nationalist and rejects Iranian influence. His relationship with Iran is merely due to convenience since the US so stupidly made sure there was no chance there could be a productive relationship between them. See Iran bet on all the horses whereas we bet on the fat, stupid ones that have no idea how to run military operations, as evidenced by the utter humiliation Maliki suffered in Basra. Britain would have never made such idiotic mistakes in their empire....sigh. Also, Bush pretends Iran only supports our "enemies" because that creates an us versus them at!@#$%^&*ude whereas the truth doesn't make the war drums beat.