The headline screams \"'US planning strike against Iran'
so that it would appear that once again cowboy GWB is getting set for another war. Even though Iran is clearly developing nuclear capabilities I'm sure the liberal mouth pieces will start their War at No Cost agenda to make Bush look bad. OTOH, one needs to read the verbage below the headline and see that:
\"The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.\"
So with NATO involved it would appear even the Euro Appeasement crowd is nervous about Iran and willing to be in the planning stage on throttling Irans dream of being able the terrorise the world with nuclear weapons.
So the question here is:
1) How many here would be in favor of a attack on Iran if they don't abandon their nuclear ambitions
and
2) How many here think the WMD question with Iran is just more manipulated data so we have a excuse to attack Iran and bring it kicking and screaming into the real democratic age of enlightened govt.?
http://tinyurl.com/eyvqr
The new Bush War.
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
It was suggested on a Sunday talk show as a prediction that Israel would initiate a battle with Iran because of the latter's expressed desires to harm the former, and the apathy of the world's superpowers to get involved. I don't even know how practical that is.
It would best to explore this option once Iraq is cleaned up, presuming that by the end of 2006, our presence there is significantly less than it currently is. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we're still pretty smeared across the Middle East. I don't think Bush will necessarily initiate a war in Iran before his Presidency is up unless Iran does something drastic (i.e. takes action). With popular support for Iraq being as it is, declaring the need to start another war is political suicide for Republicans in an election year.
Should it wind up being the case, let's do it right this time and make the case to our remaining allies that it is important. I also don't necessarily think this means bringing Iran \"kicking and screaming\" into democracy either. There's a third option between \"do nothing\" and \"create a democracy.\" It's called \"blast the offending program to hell.\"
In my opinion (famous last words
), that's what our armed forces are supposed to do. The whole act of rebuilding and policymaking isn't something you bestow on our best warriors. That's for diplomats to figure out. The armed forces come in when that fails. Ideally, the weaker side eventually has enough of the battle and decides to start talking to diplomats again.
As hindsight might tell us, this seemed to work in Desert Storm. The UN inspectors never found WMD, and we still haven't, even though Hussein was an idiot in proclaiming and/or believing he did. Even if he did, Desert Storm was a successful campaign that could be repeated in order to keep Hussein in check.
When Bush claimed \"Mission Accomplished!\" I think it was feasibly the end of a Desert Storm-type scenario. Most of the troops have probably gone home and left the diplomats to sort it out from there. Up to that point, the second Iraq war had been relatively painless, just like Desert Storm. Bush decided, for better or worse, to take it one step further. Say, we're going to establish a democracy here so part of the Middle East is secure for our needs and so we won't have to come back anytime soon. That's one way to look at it.
As for the question of skewed data, Bush has proven to me time and again that I need to take everything he says with a liberal grain of salt. But I think past relations with Iran put the assertion firmly in the \"It doesn't surprise me\" bin.
It would best to explore this option once Iraq is cleaned up, presuming that by the end of 2006, our presence there is significantly less than it currently is. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we're still pretty smeared across the Middle East. I don't think Bush will necessarily initiate a war in Iran before his Presidency is up unless Iran does something drastic (i.e. takes action). With popular support for Iraq being as it is, declaring the need to start another war is political suicide for Republicans in an election year.
Should it wind up being the case, let's do it right this time and make the case to our remaining allies that it is important. I also don't necessarily think this means bringing Iran \"kicking and screaming\" into democracy either. There's a third option between \"do nothing\" and \"create a democracy.\" It's called \"blast the offending program to hell.\"
In my opinion (famous last words
), that's what our armed forces are supposed to do. The whole act of rebuilding and policymaking isn't something you bestow on our best warriors. That's for diplomats to figure out. The armed forces come in when that fails. Ideally, the weaker side eventually has enough of the battle and decides to start talking to diplomats again.As hindsight might tell us, this seemed to work in Desert Storm. The UN inspectors never found WMD, and we still haven't, even though Hussein was an idiot in proclaiming and/or believing he did. Even if he did, Desert Storm was a successful campaign that could be repeated in order to keep Hussein in check.
When Bush claimed \"Mission Accomplished!\" I think it was feasibly the end of a Desert Storm-type scenario. Most of the troops have probably gone home and left the diplomats to sort it out from there. Up to that point, the second Iraq war had been relatively painless, just like Desert Storm. Bush decided, for better or worse, to take it one step further. Say, we're going to establish a democracy here so part of the Middle East is secure for our needs and so we won't have to come back anytime soon. That's one way to look at it.
As for the question of skewed data, Bush has proven to me time and again that I need to take everything he says with a liberal grain of salt. But I think past relations with Iran put the assertion firmly in the \"It doesn't surprise me\" bin.
Was not the Bush administration's plan for the middle east: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria?
I heard about this all the way back when Bush announced he'd invade Afghanistan. So far it's all falling into place.
I forget who's plan it was, Rumsfeld maybe. It was written before Bush Jr ever came to power. can anyone remember what this document was called and help me out?
I heard about this all the way back when Bush announced he'd invade Afghanistan. So far it's all falling into place.
I forget who's plan it was, Rumsfeld maybe. It was written before Bush Jr ever came to power. can anyone remember what this document was called and help me out?
Re: The new Bush War.
LOL. I think we could actually score some points with the Sunni terrorist insurgency if we tell them we are going to give the Shi'a theocracy in Iran a drubbing.woodchip wrote:The headline screams "'US planning strike against Iran'
2) How many here think the WMD question with Iran is just more manipulated data so we have a excuse to attack Iran and bring it kicking and screaming into the real democratic age of enlightened govt.?