It's on with Iran...

catefrances

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Heh, that's only because the information about those events was declassified. Everything was peachy more-or-less until '79.

are you saying the iranian people had no clue what was going on? that they saw no correlation between mossadegh trying to nationalise the oil companies(amongst other things) and the overthrow of his government?
everything was not peachy until 1979.

searchlightsoul

Last Exodus wrote:

Reality is the Iranians have been arming the shiites from the beginning. We knew that.

Where is your evidence? The reality is you are a sucker for the same intelligence which got you into this Iraq disaster in the first place.

El_Kabong

catefrances wrote:

are you saying the iranian people had no clue what was going on? that they saw no correlation between mossadegh trying to nationalise the oil companies(amongst other things) and the overthrow of his government?
everything was not peachy until 1979.

yeah, i'm sure going from a democratically elected government to a repressive thug and death squads is a hard change to notice

Last Exodus

Open wrote:

Just like the US arms the jews and armed Iraq.

I have Jewish neighbors...They didn't get any of these so called arms.

Last Exodus

searchlightsoul wrote:

Where is your evidence? The reality is you are a sucker for the same intelligence which got you into this Iraq disaster in the first place.

It's common sense. The Iraqi Army dissapeared into the mist after 03. Where are all these munitions coming from? You can honestly say that Iran doesn't have a vested interest in controlling a country it was at war with for years when they think they have a chance to do it? Cmon man...The only evidence I need is what's already in the public realm. Those weapons aren't just leftovers. They have to be coming from somewhere....

searchlightsoul

Last Exodus wrote:

It's common sense. The Iraqi Army dissapeared into the mist after 03. Where are all these munitions coming from? You can honestly say that Iran doesn't have a vested interest in controlling a country it was at war with for years when they think they have a chance to do it? Cmon man...The only evidence I need is what's already in the public realm. Those weapons aren't just leftovers. They have to be coming from somewhere....

You may well be right but how about we see some evidence-photos or something-which confirm that this stuff is Iranian otherwise this becomes just another "just so" story.

Last Exodus

searchlightsoul wrote:

You may well be right but how about we see some evidence-photos or something-which confirm that this stuff is Iranian otherwise this becomes just another "just so" story.

Well I dont think it matters what the Bush admin shows us. No one will buy it. We currently have 4 Iranians in custody. More to come.

bryanfury

I think Iran is covertly funding the insurgents. why shouldnt they? we would do it (and have done it more times than anyone in the past) if the tables were reversed. its compeltely plausible that we went into iraq with iran next on our plate, and as has already been mentioned, iran has a direct national security interest in getting us the hell out of there asap.

El_Kabong

Open wrote:

Just like the US arms the jews and armed Iraq.

and in the late 80's we sold thousands of rockets to iran using israel as the middleman

Last Exodus

El_Kabong wrote:

and in the late 80's we sold thousands of rockets to iran using israel as the middleman

You left out the Contras. This ain't the 80's. It's a new world. Did George Bush want to eventually confront Iran? Scroll back to that whole axis of evil thing. I really think he believed that shit at the time. I think he was fully intent on taking on each one of those nations, one at a time. But he ran out of time...Or he is running out of time. It ain't over yet. I wouldn't put it past ol George W to do one more big ol airstrike before sailing off...

Cosmo

I don't think that even George W. Bush is stupid enough to go into Iran... Here's why:
We have a large number of troops already in an unstable Iraq. We aren't even sure which side the Iraqis we've already trainned are on... we don't know where their loyalties lie. There is an increasing Shi'ite majority in Iraq... many of whom follow the teaching of Grand Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran whose fundamentalist Islamic revolution gave them hope of unifying that sect of Islam.
Now, with these guys armed and intermingled with the U.S. troops... don't think that there is a great possibility that there would be acts of mutiny in their ranks when the Americans in their midst went over to kill their bretheren in Iran? And these acts could easily be commited and cost the lives of many of our soldiers. Imagine a disgruntled Iraqi Shi'ite that is attached to an American division... he pulls it pin on his grenade in a Bradley as they move out on patrol... or rolls it into a mess hall... or into a barrack.
We cannot count on the Iraqis being on our side... one of the biggest problems Hussein's more advanced army faced in the Iran/Iraq War was the Shi'ite soldiers who deserted once they were out and away from their companies. Many of them actually fled to Iran.
We have to understand that we do not understand the Middle East. Iran and Iraq have more religious ties than we understand and they do not see nationalism as we do. This is why we are failing in Iraq... we think they should be like us... but, we cannot face the fact that they probably aren't... and will never be like us. The same way we do not understand their religion and their culture. We consantly compare their predicament with our own Revolution... they are not even close in comparison.
For the Bush Administration to take on Iran would be even a greater mistake than Iraq. It would make an unstable situation even worse. And the ones who will pay for it... our soldiers. I don't think he is that stupid... or at least, I HOPE he isn't.

Last Exodus

Cosmo wrote:

I don't think that even George W. Bush is stupid enough to go into Iran... Here's why:
We have a large number of troops already in an unstable Iraq. We aren't even sure which side the Iraqis we've already trainned are on... we don't know where their loyalties lie. There is an increasing Shi'ite majority in Iraq... many of whom follow the teaching of Grand Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran whose fundamentalist Islamic revolution gave them hope of unifying that sect of Islam.
Now, with these guys armed and intermingled with the U.S. troops... don't think that there is a great possibility that there would be acts of mutiny in their ranks when the Americans in their midst went over to kill their bretheren in Iran? And these acts could easily be commited and cost the lives of many of our soldiers. Imagine a disgruntled Iraqi Shi'ite that is attached to an American division... he pulls it pin on his grenade in a Bradley as they move out on patrol... or rolls it into a mess hall... or into a barrack.
We cannot count on the Iraqis being on our side... one of the biggest problems Hussein's more advanced army faced in the Iran/Iraq War was the Shi'ite soldiers who deserted once they were out and away from their companies. Many of them actually fled to Iran.
We have to understand that we do not understand the Middle East. Iran and Iraq have more religious ties than we understand and they do not see nationalism as we do. This is why we are failing in Iraq... we think they should be like us... but, we cannot face the fact that they probably aren't... and will never be like us. The same way we do not understand their religion and their culture. We consantly compare their predicament with our own Revolution... they are not even close in comparison.
For the Bush Administration to take on Iran would be even a greater mistake than Iraq. It would make an unstable situation even worse. And the ones who will pay for it... our soldiers. I don't think he is that stupid... or at least, I HOPE he isn't.

Well I dont disagree. However if he were to manage a disengagement of our troops, which doesnt look likely, out of harms way in Iraq, I dont think hed hesitate to take out Natanz. Frankly this was the one target we should have hit from the beginning. At least there we could verifty legitimate WMD intent

Cosmo

Last Exodus wrote:

Well I dont disagree. However if he were to manage a disengagement of our troops, which doesnt look likely, out of harms way in Iraq, I dont think hed hesitate to take out Natanz. Frankly this was the one target we should have hit from the beginning. At least there we could verifty legitimate WMD intent

...
I agree... I have long felt that Iran was always the greatest threat in the region. From 1979, they have been the Persian nation that was most out of sync with the rest of the, mostly Sunni and Arab, region. I believe that other Arab nations tolerated Hussein because his Iraq acted as a buffer against the Iranian fundamentalists.
A tack I *thought* this administration was going to take in the days after September 11, 2001 would be one more in line with a Reagan/Bush Sr. line of thinking and impose a containment strategy of Iran with the support of our European and NATO allies... the same way the U.S. sponsored/U.N. imposed economic sanctions had rendered Iraq into an impotent force.
I *thought* that we would establish our forward base of operations in a stabilized Afghanistan. From there, we'd be able to convince the Arab neighbors to join in and completely isolate Iran in the region. I know that coalitions of Arab states are shakey at best, but I truely believe that we would have been able to build an alliance through diplomatic channels and pressure Iran to change from within.
But, that is hard work. The military option is easy. And this administration has proven to us that they cannot work out tough situations. Once we lost our focus on getting Afghanistan up and running at 90% or 100% and went on our little adventure into Iraq... all of that was lost forever.
Maybe they thought Iraq was going to be easy... that we'd be able to apply pressure on Iran from both sides... Iraq to the West, Afghanistan to the East. But, they should have looked deeper into the situation and factored in the complications that would surface in a military occupation of two Arab nations. They are supposed to have Middle East experts to advise them... maybe they did, but just didn't listen to them. Anyone with even a little understanding of Middle Eastern culture should have recognized the problems that would arrise when the Iron Fist of the Hussein dictarorship was lifted. Bush Sr. knew this... why didn't his son? Now, we have unstable elements on both sides of Iran and the Iranian influence is a factor in both.
Bush has created a monster and has empowered Iran and strengthened their hand. Iran can pretty much do as they please... even in the face of a nuclear Super Power. If we nuke them... we are screwed. We become the 'Evil Empire' that we hated for all those years and validate the Arab hatred that we should be trying to quell. If we let them go... we're screwed. We have to face the fact that Iraq... with their overwhelming Shi'ite majority... will elect a Shi'ite leadership in a free, democratic election. Democracy in Iraq gives rise to guys like Muqtada Al Sadr... a fundamentalist Shi'ite.
We're screwed. We shouldn't stay... yet, we cannot leave. Our soldiers are placed in a real tough situation... one they should never have been placed in. The game plan sucked because we had no game plan. Our plan was to John Wayne it and go in with guns blazing... with no consideration of the consequences. Now, all we can do is hope for the best... but, in the light of the realities of the Middle East... hope won't go too far.

JamMastaE

they have been planning this for a long time,just more "manifest destiny"shit




http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC

Last Exodus

Cosmo wrote:

...
I agree... I have long felt that Iran was always the greatest threat in the region. From 1979, they have been the Persian nation that was most out of sync with the rest of the, mostly Sunni and Arab, region. I believe that other Arab nations tolerated Hussein because his Iraq acted as a buffer against the Iranian fundamentalists.
A tack I *thought* this administration was going to take in the days after September 11, 2001 would be one more in line with a Reagan/Bush Sr. line of thinking and impose a containment strategy of Iran with the support of our European and NATO allies... the same way the U.S. sponsored/U.N. imposed economic sanctions had rendered Iraq into an impotent force.
I *thought* that we would establish our forward base of operations in a stabilized Afghanistan. From there, we'd be able to convince the Arab neighbors to join in and completely isolate Iran in the region. I know that coalitions of Arab states are shakey at best, but I truely believe that we would have been able to build an alliance through diplomatic channels and pressure Iran to change from within.
But, that is hard work. The military option is easy. And this administration has proven to us that they cannot work out tough situations. Once we lost our focus on getting Afghanistan up and running at 90% or 100% and went on our little adventure into Iraq... all of that was lost forever.
Maybe they thought Iraq was going to be easy... that we'd be able to apply pressure on Iran from both sides... Iraq to the West, Afghanistan to the East. But, they should have looked deeper into the situation and factored in the complications that would surface in a military occupation of two Arab nations. They are supposed to have Middle East experts to advise them... maybe they did, but just didn't listen to them. Anyone with even a little understanding of Middle Eastern culture should have recognized the problems that would arrise when the Iron Fist of the Hussein dictarorship was lifted. Bush Sr. knew this... why didn't his son? Now, we have unstable elements on both sides of Iran and the Iranian influence is a factor in both.
Bush has created a monster and has empowered Iran and strengthened their hand. Iran can pretty much do as they please... even in the face of a nuclear Super Power. If we nuke them... we are screwed. We become the 'Evil Empire' that we hated for all those years and validate the Arab hatred that we should be trying to quell. If we let them go... we're screwed. We have to face the fact that Iraq... with their overwhelming Shi'ite majority... will elect a Shi'ite leadership in a free, democratic election. Democracy in Iraq gives rise to guys like Muqtada Al Sadr... a fundamentalist Shi'ite.
We're screwed. We shouldn't stay... yet, we cannot leave. Our soldiers are placed in a real tough situation... one they should never have been placed in. The game plan sucked because we had no game plan. Our plan was to John Wayne it and go in with guns blazing... with no consideration of the consequences. Now, all we can do is hope for the best... but, in the light of the realities of the Middle East... hope won't go too far.

Well put. But we are amassing forces in the region capable of a massive air strike on Natanz. The 20K troops Bush says are for Iraq may very well be to guard against and Iranian counter-offensive. So we will see...

gossardstradlin

Cosmo wrote:

I don't think he is that stupid... or at least, I HOPE he isn't.

Great discussion and points.

Above is the line that personally scares me the most.

Almost nothing would surprise me anymore with this guy (meaning Bush).

YourBuddy

Last Exodus wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1583523,00.html

It's happenin. All the evidence is there. And it ain't gonna be pretty. This has been coming for some time and the move is on right now. How do I know? Look around...

1) 20K more troops going to "iraq" over the protests of BOTH parties
2) 3 US carrier groups within range or Iran
3) Bold moves by US troops directly against Iranian interests in Iraq.
4) Israel's attack on Hezbollah? Huh you say? Israel gets advance intelligence of US intent to strike Iran and realize that Hezbollah will use Iranian made missiles to attack their cities in a reprisal that would certainly come. So they move first and push Hezbollah back first.

And before everyone calls me a war monger I am not advocating this, simply saying take a look....

20k troops is not nearly enough to start a war with iran. 3 carrier groups are probably more of a strongarm to show iran its a possibility so stop making things worse. The bold moves are in themselves an attempt to control iraq, a bad move probably. Isreals attack on hezzbolah is a normal occurance in the middle east.

Things have been worse between the us and iran and there was no war. There will be no war now considering the state of the american military.

THC

we're not going to war w/ Iran. We can't even finish the war we are currently in. (which no one even wants.)

its called posturing....

Last Exodus

YourBuddy wrote:

20k troops is not nearly enough to start a war with iran. 3 carrier groups are probably more of a strongarm to show iran its a possibility so stop making things worse. The bold moves are in themselves an attempt to control iraq, a bad move probably. Isreals attack on hezzbolah is a normal occurance in the middle east.

Things have been worse between the us and iran and there was no war. There will be no war now considering the state of the american military.

Maybe not intentionally. But anything can happen on accident with tensions so high. And I think George W is just looking for a pretext to hit Natanz....which he should.

SundaySilence

THC wrote:

we're not going to war w/ Iran. We can't even finish the war we are currently in. (which no one even wants.)

Iran is fighting us in Iraq, so they don't have to fight us at home.