Is The Us Setting The Stage For Going Into Iran? Why?

[whitev70r]

So what if Iran is supplying Iraq with arms? The other half of Iraq's artillery is probably made in US, they probably supplied it to the Iraqi insurgents years ago when they wanted them to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Kind of like US fighting the Al Quada in Afghanistan, each shooting missiles made in US at each other. What else are you going to do when US military factories are making all these missiles and bombs and they are stocking up ... especially if you, the president and/or vice president have vested interest in these huge military companies/factories.

And oh ... for some of you who think the Middle East are 'stupid' ... from the rest of the world's point of view AND a large % of people IN the US, this administration is STUPID.

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush did put his Texan cowboy hat on and try something STUPID with Iran ... oh, and Mr. Bush, don't forget North Korea, afterall, we declared you the keeper of peace and democracy of the human race. He got whooped by the Democrats in the last midterm elections he comes up with a brilliant idea ... 'let's increase troops to Iraq'. What will it take for him to get the message? Read Thucydides, history is replaying itself, democracy is a wonderful country but the US definitely losing moral ground internationally.

Edited February 13, 2007 by whitev70r

[USMC850T]

There is absolutely no need for the united states to invade them. I'm sure at this very minute the centcom commanders have a very good idea where the nuclear development facilities are. All it would take are a few cruise missles and some 5,000lb JDAMS and we can put their nuc program in a state of stagnation. As for the border, I think we need to set up air patrols and kill boxes along their border. Anything which does not pass through an official checkpoint becomes a piece of char broiled wreckage courtesy of the air patrols.

[Zappo]

I don't see why there would be a need to invade a country like Iran in the first place. They seem to be politically self-imploding by their own actions. Anything more would just be more. There certainly might be some necessary limited actions taken knowing that our pal Putin has been sending the Iranians missiles capable of destroying our aircraft carriers in the gulf. But as far as an invasion with boots on the ground, I don't think that will ever happen.

I agree, the current ruling body lost a lot of seats in their last election. Their nutcase president is still in power, but it is clear that the people don't want such a radical government.

We don't have the manpower to invade while still policing Iraq and Afganistan. Invading Iran would be much different than Iraq.

[RAzOR]

Invading Iran is not significant militarily.

In the case you didn't know, Iran's government is an iron-fisted theocracy. A Theocracy is a religously ruled country or people. We have seen that the extreme version of Islam- that the suicide bombers hold- is the same as that of the Iranian government. In fact many suspect the Iranian governement as assisting in this program.

Who's to say they won't try to eliminate their religous enemy, Israel, with their nukes the first chance they get? They are not concerened about dying apparently, so why would they need a better reason other than have the chance at destroying the most hated enemy of their God? Who cares if it means their own obliteration?

THAT is what sets them apart from North Korea mainly.

I hope all of you who are not sure of the differences now see that there exists a very severe difference. The North Koreans do not want to die. The Iranian leadership and its millions welcomes it as martrydom. To give people with this mentality nukes seems like a bad, bad idea to me. Call me kooky if you want to.

THAT is why I don't want them to have a bomb. THAT is why it should matter. They prove every day in Baghdad that they are not afraid to die and in fact, welcome, death as a means to their end.

And the need to invade might be more pressing than thought of. Iran's nuke program is hardened.

[Kashif]

Invading Iran is not significant militarily.

Either was Iraq, but the US still has it's hands full at the current time. Invading another country would just be plain stupid. But hey alot of stupid people still want it. To each his own.

[RAzOR]

Either was Iraq, but the US still has it's hands full at the current time. Invading another country would just be plain stupid. But hey alot of stupid people still want it. To each his own.

I don't think "want it" it the right term. "Think it is crucial for success" might be more accurate.

Yes, the US's hands are full ground-troop-wise but only because it is policing Iraqi streets. I am not sure how much this effects its overall offensive capability. My guess is "not much".

[whitev70r]

In the case you didn't know, Iran's government is an iron-fisted theocracy. A Theocracy is a religously ruled country or people. We have seen that the extreme version of Islam- that the suicide bombers hold- is the same as that of the Iranian government. In fact many suspect the Iranian governement as assisting in this program.

Who's to say they won't try to eliminate their religous enemy, Israel, with their nukes the first chance they get? They are not concerened about dying apparently, so why would they need a better reason other than have the chance at destroying the most hated enemy of their God? Who cares if it means their own obliteration?

I hope all of you who are not sure of the differences now see that there exists a very severe difference. The North Koreans do not want to die. The Iranian leadership and its millions welcomes it as martrydom. To give people with this mentality nukes seems like a bad, bad idea to me. Call me kooky if you want to.

THAT is why I don't want them to have a bomb. THAT is why it should matter. They prove every day in Baghdad that they are not afraid to die and in fact, welcome, death as a means to their end.

And the need to invade might be more pressing than thought of. Iran's nuke program is hardened.

Wow! You are kooky, you said we could call you that if we want.

1. Democracy I thought, meant that people were entitled to their own beliefs, religion, and cultural values. Why does the US, a democratic country, insist on being 'undemocratic' in that other people cannot have whatever worldview/religious/cultural beliefs that they want, including iron-fisted theocracy? Unless democracy has been distorted to mean the imposition of all nations to the Western capitalistic democracy of the US.

2. If the US had better foreign policy, ie. you leave Iran alone, do not provoke them, nor impose American values on them, steal their oil, I highly doubt that they will nuke the US for no reason other than religious extremism. Think about it. Why are there never any talks about Iran wanting to nuke Sweden. Ans: because Sweden doesn't piss people off through their international foreign policy. In other words, there is good reason for Iranian hostility towards the US and other Western countries. I think the majority of Iranians are like you and me, it is not fair to paint Iranians as extremists any more than to paint all Americans like Timothy McVeigh. Even you said that it was an extreme form of Islam. Iranians in general (not extremists) are nice people. They want to provide for their families, they want to put food on the table, they want security and a roof over their heads just like you and me.

3. You can't fault people for wanting to die for their own freedom and religious views. US and Canada were built on the backs of those who were not afraid to die in battle for what they believe in. In the unfortunately reality of war, you would want someone who is not afraid to die ... for their country. Why do we see our soldiers willingness to die as a good thing and the 'other side's' soldier's willingness to die as some sort of evil? ... again extremists aside, cuz extremists whether they are Iraqi, Iranian or American should be dealt with.

Violence begets violence.

[///RonalT5]

There is absolutely no need for the united states to invade them. I'm sure at this very minute the centcom commanders have a very good idea where the nuclear development facilities are. All it would take are a few cruise missles and some 5,000lb JDAMS and we can put their nuc program in a state of stagnation. As for the border, I think we need to set up air patrols and kill boxes along their border. Anything which does not pass through an official checkpoint becomes a piece of char broiled wreckage courtesy of the air patrols.

+1 dude. That should have been our plan for Iraq. We don't need to start another invasion.

~Mike

[USMC850T]

1. Democracy I thought, meant that people were entitled to their own beliefs, religion, and cultural values. Why does the US, a democratic country, insist on being 'undemocratic' in that other people cannot have whatever worldview/religious/cultural beliefs that they want, including iron-fisted theocracy? Unless democracy has been distorted to mean the imposition of all nations to the Western capitalistic democracy of the US.

Democracy is different that self determination. Our foriegn policy typically allows for self determination when it is in our best interest, or in the interests of that region. Our foriegn policy has also had quite a history in proactively changing unfriendly or hostile regimes to those which better suit our interests. Welcome to the real world.

2. If the US had better foreign policy, ie. you leave Iran alone, do not provoke them, nor impose American values on them, steal their oil, I highly doubt that they will nuke the US for no reason other than religious extremism. Think about it. Why are there never any talks about Iran wanting to nuke Sweden. Ans: because Sweden doesn't piss people off through their international foreign policy. In other words, there is good reason for Iranian hostility towards the US and other Western countries. I think the majority of Iranians are like you and me, it is not fair to paint Iranians as extremists any more than to paint all Americans like Timothy McVeigh. Even you said that it was an extreme form of Islam. Iranians in general (not extremists) are nice people. They want to provide for their families, they want to put food on the table, they want security and a roof over their heads just like you and me.

I don't think America has been provoking or imposing values on Iran. I can't think of many nations aside from Iran who think it's a good idea for them to posess nuclear capabilities, and it's not totally unreasonable to take measures to ensure they not be able to obtain them. They certainly present a danger to our interests in the region, most specifically Israel. They hate isreal. Hate them - not even up for debate. Listen to some of the speeches their 'president" gives on the subject.

[whitev70r]

Democracy is different that self determination. Our foriegn policy typically allows for self determination when it is in our best interest, or in the interests of that region. Our foriegn policy has also had quite a history in proactively changing unfriendly or hostile regimes to those which better suit our interests. Welcome to the real world.

I don't think America has been provoking or imposing values on Iran. I can't think of many nations aside from Iran who think it's a good idea for them to posess nuclear capabilities, and it's not totally unreasonable to take measures to ensure they not be able to obtain them. They certainly present a danger to our interests in the region, most specifically Israel. They hate isreal. Hate them - not even up for debate. Listen to some of the speeches their 'president" gives on the subject.

'allows for self determination when it is in our best interest, or in the interests of that region' ... wow, that is really kind, generous, and gracious of the US. Thank you.

As for 'proactively changing unfriendly hostile regimes to those which better suit our interest', my interpretation is that the change was for the better of the people of that country involved as well, could you name, say three in the last 100 years ... not including Iraq, of course, the one that is going so well presently.

Edited February 15, 2007 by whitev70r

[starfish]

The problem with this survey is the semantics posed.

Not every military strike is an invasion, likewise not every invasion is a military strike.

There is no need for an Iranian invasion because there is nothing there to gain by capture. Iran is just another one of the wacked out islamic republics that is creeping back into some type of isolationist eight century idealism, which is doomed to fail all on its own in this modern day global economy. This country Iran, has so many major infrastructure and societal problems already that it would be in ruins if it were not for $60/bl oil. Even with the higher oil prices this country cannot prosper due to their irresponsibility.

Increasing our supply of nuclear energy, increasing domestic oil supply and developing true viable alternatives to middle east energy will do a lot to bring change in this neighborhood. $10/bl of crude oil would be a godsend to the peaceful removal of these nut cases like in Iran and Venezuala. If this Ayatollah or his president starts getting a little too wiseguy for their own good, then post 9/11 then they definetely will deserve and receive a brush back pitch courtesy of the USMC.

To watch the liberal media blame George Bush or to blame our military or to blame all Americans for being oil dependant is ludicrous. The fault lies in the years of bull crappin hysteria nonsense placed upon and tolerated by the average person about how we are "destroying the earth" or "we are the cause of global warming" or "we have an insatiable desire to use all of the worlds natural resources." People need to smarten up to these speadings of these socialist elites lies and allow ourselves to move forward and prosper in ways that both protect the environment and our national security.

[USMC850T]

'allows for self determination when it is in our best interest, or in the interests of that region' ... wow, that is really kind, generous, and gracious of the US. Thank you.

As for 'proactively changing unfriendly hostile regimes to those which better suit our interest', my interpretation is that the change was for the better of the people of that country involved as well, could you name, say three in the last 100 years ... not including Iraq, of course, the one that is going so well presently.

1.) Germany

2.) Italy

3.) Japan

4.) France (Vischy regime - nazi/ axis collaborator)

There are many more which are not quite as obvious as the fallout of WWII

We've motivated the officer corps of many nations to plot and execute many a coup d'etat in latin american and to a much smaller extent black africa. there seems to be a relationship between periods of economic stagnation, lack of the public's political participation oppertunities and the occurence of such coups. Usually a military intervention into politics results in a period of improvement for the people of that nation. There are obvious examples when this is not the case, but by and large things usually improve. The topic of transitional civil military relations is probably a good for a dissertation, but we can generalize and say they usually benifit that nation for varying periods of time.

Let it be noted that we typically won't get involved in such things unless they have some kind of benefit for us, another harsh reality of the real world .

[RAzOR]

Let it be noted that we typically won't get involved in such things unless they have some kind of benefit for us, another harsh reality of the real world .

Or if the current situation poses a risk to our way of life- as in threats to the oil supply.

[RAzOR]

Wow! You are kooky, you said we could call you that if we want.

1. Democracy I thought, meant that people were entitled to their own beliefs, religion, and cultural values. Why does the US, a democratic country, insist on being 'undemocratic' in that other people cannot have whatever worldview/religious/cultural beliefs that they want, including iron-fisted theocracy?

2. If the US had better foreign policy, ie. you leave Iran alone, do not provoke them, nor impose American values on them, steal their oil, Iranians in general (not extremists) are nice people. They want to provide for their families, they want to put food on the table...

3. extremists whether they are Iraqi, Iranian or American should be dealt with.

Violence begets violence.

1. No. Democracy is rule of the people. The US only has a problem with a country or people when they threaten us. This can be militarily, economically, or any other way deemed a threat.

2. We are not STEALING their oil. We pay for it. Ever heard of OPEC? We pay a lot. We've made their countries some of the richest in the world. We are so hands off, that we let their governments DO WHAT THEY WANT with the money which has lead to some very rich and very poor people in the same country.

For the record, The EU, US, Russia, Britian, etc, could easily smash and occupy the middle east and steal the oil. They DO NOT. They pay. But at the same time we all NEED this oil. Noone can be allowed to jeapordize this. Saddam tried this in 91 when he invaded Kuwait and burned the oil fields. This THREATENS our way of life and cannot be tolerated.

Imagine how much cheaper just taking their oil would be.

And I have no problem with the Iranian poeple. I married one. But their government is taking them down a very dangerous road. And they are all "IRAN". By the US dismantling their government, maybe the pro-Shah Iranians will rise again and create a new governement that is not religeous.

3. Why? If they are harmless and pose no threat, let them be. Scientologists are extremists, but they play by the rules of society.

[FixerUpper]

i voted to setup a new regime because you didnt have destroy the sh!t we already sold them and sell them some new sh!t once their old sh!t is destroyed. See also Iraq,Haliburton, President of the United States

The EU, US, Russia, Britian, etc, could easily smash and occupy the middle east and steal the oil.

/\

LMFAO!!!!!

Russia? Russia can't even afford to get to their own oil.

if what you said was true in any way, it would have already happened. But its a hell of a lot more profitable to go destroy your whole country and sell you back the sh!t you need to build it back up again. Every ten years.

lol

its sick and sad

Edited March 3, 2007 by FixerUpper