Bush: Iran May Be Behind Crisis

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

If America has the balls, and they have too be pretty big, to go into Iran...better get used to seeing more body bags...because Iran will be 150% more difficult to fight.....it would make Iraq look like a cake walk....

Which is exactly why no one is looking for a ground war in Iran, despite popular belief on this message board.

I still think the wrong "I" country got invaded ... You know, assuming that Bush just HAD TO pull the trigger on someone.

RockinInCanada

reborncareerist wrote:

Which is exactly why no one is looking for a ground war in Iran, despite popular belief on this message board.

I still think the wrong "I" country got invaded ... You know, assuming that Bush just HAD TO pull the trigger on someone.

Okay assuming Bush had a choice I think Iraq was choosen because it was weaker prey and he was hoping for the quick victory, slam in a new government and pack up to the next fundamentalist country....but I really believe he did not foresee this much backlash.......if he does have an agenda it has unfortunatly (for him) made any type of PR campaign to invade Iran practically impossible. to promote....

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Okay assuming Bush had a choice I think Iraq was choosen because it was weaker prey and he was hoping for the quick victory, slam in a new government and pack up to the next fundamentalist country....but I really believe he did not foresee this much backlash.......if he does have an agenda it has unfortunatly (for him) made any type of PR campaign to invade Iran practically impossible. to promote....

For sure, I agree. No matter how much the American government might want Iran toppled, I don't think there's any way to sell it to the public.

RockinInCanada

reborncareerist wrote:

For sure, I agree. No matter how much the American government might want Iran toppled, I don't think there's any way to sell it to the public.

Two ways it could.....


1) Iran jumps in defence of Lebanon....but I really don't think they are stupid enough for that to occur...

2) Terrorist attack on American soil which gets "linked" to Iran...regardless if Iran had any role...we know this tactic has worked before...and no Im not calling 9/11 a tactic....Im calling the response a tactic....

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Two ways it could.....


1) Iran jumps in defence of Lebanon....but I really don't think they are stupid enough for that to occur...

2) Terrorist attack on American soil which gets "linked" to Iran...regardless if Iran had any role...we know this tactic has worked before...and no Im not calling 9/11 a tactic....Im calling the response a tactic....

Hmm ... Not sure if the first would lead to an invasion, but certainly there would be a spanking in the form of airstrikes. I think you're probably right (not likely to happen), although the Iranian president really worries me. He sounds and behaves a lot like a nascent Adolph Hitler, who fortunately at this time lacks the means to impose his will on the rest of the world.

Number 2 would probably do it, you're right. My real fear here is that the Americans would be tempted to "cut corners" ... They already have had huge problems on the ground in Iraq, and if Iran gets linked to another terrorist attack, they might skip right to carpet bombing. With conventional weapons or otherwise ... I hate being a doomsayer, but man, I think it would be bad news indeed for the globe if Iran did anything so stupid.

RockinInCanada

reborncareerist wrote:

Hmm ... Not sure if the first would lead to an invasion, but certainly there would be a spanking in the form of airstrikes. I think you're probably right (not likely to happen), although the Iranian president really worries me. He sounds and behaves a lot like a nascent Adolph Hitler, who fortunately at this time lacks the means to impose his will on the rest of the world.

Number 2 would probably do it, you're right. My real fear here is that the Americans would be tempted to "cut corners" ... They already have had huge problems on the ground in Iraq, and if Iran gets linked to another terrorist attack, they might skip right to carpet bombing. With conventional weapons or otherwise ... I hate being a doomsayer, but man, I think it would be bad news indeed for the globe if Iran did anything so stupid.

I really believe they will not...Iran knows that the West/Israel is just waiting for ONE MISTAKE...thats all it will take.....for that matter I am more worried about the "cutting of corners" than Iran doing something....and people should be aware one way or another China/Russia do support Iran in some capacties (Putin believes Iran shoudl have a limited amount of nuclear tehnology)...you will be dealing with a lot more than Iran in a "cutting the corners" incident....than for example their direct entry into this conflict....

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

You can say that because at the time, Iran was a quasi-ally, as was Bin laden. At the time that these groups received weapons from the U.S., they were not considered to be terrorists. In fact, as far as the U.S. was concerned, they weren't.

Is this a good thing? No, not at all. But it strikes me as weird to go back into history and claim that the U.S. funds terrorists based on previous political alliances. A current example would be more convincing.

what? at the time iran had american hostages!!! we were arming iraq at the same time and suppsoedly the reason for that was to fight iran.

kdpjam

El_Kabong wrote:

Reagan sold Iran over 2,000 TOW missiles (as well as other missiles)...al qaeda was created while bin laden was on the cia payroll...how can you say we don't fund terrorist organizations? the whole reason reagan had to be sneaky about funding the contras in nicaragua was b/c congress thought they were terrorists and made it illegal to support them

ok.. the reagan/oliver north situation or whatever you term it was a mess and we are in a mess now. just can't group america with the hezbollah.

El_Kabong

kdpjam wrote:

ok.. the reagan/oliver north situation or whatever you term it was a mess and we are in a mess now. just can't group america with the hezbollah.

i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...

these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!

under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now

PaperPlates

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

If America has the balls, and they have too be pretty big, to go into Iran...better get used to seeing more body bags...because Iran will be 150% more difficult to fight.....it would make Iraq look like a cake walk....

We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.

inmytree

PaperPlates wrote:

We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.

what a sick and stupid comment...:rolleyes:

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...

these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!

under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now

This is a good post.

mammasan

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...

these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!

under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now

Well said.

PaperPlates

inmytree wrote:

what a sick and stupid comment...:rolleyes:

It'd be sick if its what I wished for. And it'd be stupid if it wasn't so very likely. Reality bites.

RockinInCanada

PaperPlates wrote:

We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.

Well that would really put your best pal, Israel, in a bind when a tonne of Sunburn missles fall down upon them....going into Iran would be a suicide mission at this point, considering the attempt that was made on Iraq has failed miserably and Iraq was country that was systematically disarmed....also an unjustied attack on Iran would bring the Russians/Chinese in being involved, as they have shown support for Iran in developing nuclear energy....

jeffbr

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

....going into Iran would be a suicide mission at this point, considering the attempt that was made on Iraq has failed miserably and Iraq was country that was systematically disarmed....

It depends upon the objective. We had NO trouble with the Iraqi army, or Saddam. In fact we went in there like a hot knife through butter. The problem has been being the police and force-feeding democracy. When the military was being the military there was never any doubt about who was controlling what. And we could do much the same with Iran. It only gets sticky when we have no clearly definited objectives, no exit strategy, and the politicians run the war instead of the generals. I never wanted the US in Iraq, and I hope we don't go into Iran. But I wanted to point out that there is a huge gap between how the politicians are prosecuting this war and what our actual military capabilities are.

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

also an unjustied attack on Iran would bring the Russians/Chinese in being involved, as they have shown support for Iran in developing nuclear energy....

Good point, and yet another reason not to attack Iran.