DescentBB

Seriously, this is not the way to do it.

His address doesn't surprise me too much, that said, but he really could have better chosen what to say and what not to say; the broadcast is not just heard by Americans, but basically the entire world that is listening.

So, at a time when a large part of the UN is concerned about Iran's nuclear programme - including America of course - you would think he would have the sense not to encourage Iranian citizens to revolt against their freaking government, accuse that government of oppression, and so on.

That's approximately as stupid as trying to broker a truce with Israel while requesting that the Palestinian jihadis step up their bombing attacks.

After this little outburst there is simply no way Iran is ever going to listen to the US. If we're lucky, the rest of the UN will have some power to convince them, but it now seems quite obvious America just wants the threat neutralised in any way possible. Once again, his crusade-like good versus evil agenda has gotten in the way of a pragmatic, mutually beneficial outcome. I'm not saying that freeing the Iranian people should never happen, just that it should take a back seat when regional security, and possibly a lot of lives, could be at stake.

Good luck with 'diplomacy', Bush... you're going to need it.

Iran and the U.S. have outstanding issues dating back to the 70's. When Iran was fighting the Russians we where helping them. When the Russians withdrew from Iran they turned around and killed off the Shaw amd all American military personal and dragged there dead bodies through the streets on international T.V. - Our relationship with Iran has been on the testy side ever since.

All the BS will not end in our life time, so sad, so many lives will perish.

Bush's policy concerning \"diplomacy\" can tactically be likened to Saddam's.

Sirius wrote:....
After this little outburst there is simply no way Iran is ever going to listen to the US. If we're lucky, the rest of the UN will have some power to convince them,.....

#1 There is no way in hell that they were ever going to listen to the U.S.
#2 There is no way in hell that the U.N. is any kind of threat to them.

Those are the facts and the the only threat Iran will fear is the one Bush alluded to which is, we will unilaterally decide and act according to our interests.
And that possibility is magnified by very recent events right there in their own backyard!

So when Iran considers possible reaction to their antics what do you think worries them the most?
What kind of U.N. sanction/resolution is more threatening, the one that the French will hold perpetual talks on, or the one that the U.S. is known to say "Enough of this BS!!! and then we come in and clean house?!?!

How in the world can Iran be an immediate target? We don't even control Iraq yet and the military is spread thin, Iran will cost a lot of American lives. I tell you what, if you're pro war with Iran, go volunteer for service again. I'm sure they'll take you this time.

Will Robinson wrote:the U.S. is known to say "Enough of this BS!!! and then we come in and clean house?!?!

Seems highly unlikely. We can hardly handle the two front war we are in right now. Expanding it to three fronts would be VERY expensive and unpopular.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush decided to take punitive actions, which could very well include bombings, but I don't expect to see ground troops in Iran in this decade. Not without major changes in the political structure of the U.S.

Zuruck wrote:How in the world can Iran be an immediate target?...

I don't think Iran is an "immediate target" for an invasion but they could be a target for a strike on any suspected nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities.

However, the fact that we have shown the balls to invade, practically unilaterally, does put a whole lot of weight into any U.N. sanctions/resolutions that may be passed.
Face it, until we invaded Iraq, Saddam showed the U.N. to be a 12 year running joke with no sign of ever backing up their threats!
And since it wasn't the U.N. who initiated the invasion, without the U.S., the U.N. is still a paper tiger!
Without the american cowboy factor included in the equation Iran isn't going to be very concerned at all with the U.N. and they would have a surplus of nuclear missiles long before the U.N. would finally try to enforce anything, at which point the U.N. would be aware of the development of the new Iranian arsenal and retreat once again into committee and do nothing but talk about how they now can not afford to invade due to the nature of Irans new nuclear capabilities!!

Either someone stops them now or we enter into a new era of a cold war scenario but a cold war with a new and terrible twist to it, a standoff with an enemy that doesn't believe they are mutually assured destruction since they believe Allah or some imaginary friend will reward their death with victory after death!!

Hell yes Bush is talking tough and encouraging a revolution from within, it's our best hope for disarming one of the most radical and massive collection of islamikazi's ever imagined!!

That nutjob of a president in Iran is for real and armed with nuclear missiles he is way more dangerous than any uber-bad-guy/evil-genius in a James Bond movie and we have no James Bond in real life to counter him.

You know what, I'd go along with, but have Israel take the first shot. They have shown the resolve to act in their interests, let them bomb the first few sites and get it started. If they got involved, I think Iran would smarten up. Israel has no fear in using what they have.

Not the best war games senario i've heard. Think man think!!!!

No, war sucks. It should be avoidable, but it seems like it won't be. I'm sure it's not long before the Iran war drum starts beating, even though this country cannont sustain forces in two countries. Iraq is nowhere near close to being secure, we pull our tanks out of there and it's civil war in two weeks and we're going to attack another country?

I hope that if it does come to military action, that the UN acts and the force is multi-national. If not, add a couple of zeros to the death toll and expect a draft. They should do a poll though, all those in favor of the war go first. When they all die, everyone else. I wonder how for the war will, woodchip, and the rest would be if their number was called.

Zuruck wrote:No, war sucks. It should be avoidable, but it seems like it won't be.

It would be less likely if all the members of the U.N. Security Council that voted for the U.N. resolutions and sanctions actually stood up to Saddam and joined together poised to invade when he first started playing his games instead of publically talking tough while at the same time privately lining up for bribes from Saddam and promising him they would never really let the U.N. enforce the resolutions....

If the U.N. membership had done that then Iran would be more likely to give in and war wouldn't seem so likely.

Will Robinson wrote:

Zuruck wrote:No, war sucks. It should be avoidable, but it seems like it won't be.

It would be less likely if all the members of the U.N. Security Council that voted for the U.N. resolutions and sanctions actually stood up to Saddam and joined together poised to invade when he first started playing his games instead of publically talking tough while at the same time privately lining up for bribes from Saddam and promising him they would never really let the U.N. enforce the resolutions....

If the U.N. membership had done that then Iran would be more likely to give in and war wouldn't seem so likely.

x2 everything you said.

If Clinton didn't give them the bomb, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Sirius wrote:...does Bush really want peace with Iran?

No

Yes, the only way we can have peace is if Iran doesn't have the bomb.

ccb056 wrote:the only way we can have peace is if Iran doesn't have the bomb.

Actually, the problem is with Iran DEVELOPING a bomb. It's a VERY bad thing to not have a bomb YET. Once they get past that point and HAVE several, America will be a lot more reluctant to play cowboy. We haven't invaded or bombed Korea yet.

We need another Reagan to defuse Korea.

Money! wrote:

Sirius wrote:...does Bush really want peace with Iran?

No

x2

Better stated... I think Bush wants an Iranian government that can live at peace with the rest of the world. He doesn't want peace with the Mullahs, he wants the Iranian people to revolt.

I read an interesting comment this morning by someone who visited Iran just recently: if you want to find people who really believe in their religion, go to the Midwest US. If you want to find cynics, go to Iran. The people are incredibly fed up with their stupid government.

Will Bush's idea work? I don't know. I think encouraging Iranian dissidents is an awesome idea, but only if we're willing to provide them with at least a little bit of support. Let's not pull an Iraq '92 again; if a guy named Bush is going to encourage a revolt, he better provide air support. Not necessarily boots on the ground, just planes in the air. Because if the Mullahs can't mass their army to put down a revolt, they can't stay in power.

Is this the right time? I don't know. I don't have enough information to balance the situation on the ground in terms of our troop strength with the situation on the ground in terms of the strength of Iran's government and opposition. I really hope Bush listened to the right people this time...

There probably IS a way for America to eliminate these threats quickly and not risk running themselves thin.

Which is basically to bomb the facilities in question, sack the governments in question (if done pre-emptively and by surprise even North Korea would have little hope of retribution), and screw the fallout afterward, just leave the civilians to clean up the mess. Doesn't take a large chunk of your forces to wreak havoc, just to keep order.

Of course, we all know how well THAT would go down... but if you were ruthless enough it could work.

Hey, it's better than his last attempts at diplomacy: \"You're either with us, or your against us!\"

And \"We are on a crusade...\"

He has set all time low standards for diplomacy, so everyone's expectations are really low right now

Kilarin wrote:We can hardly handle the two front war we are in right now. Expanding it to three fronts would be VERY expensive and unpopular.

Two fronts? If you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope you realize that Iran is right in between the two.

And they are not "two fronts" as you are describing them. They are a similar enemy in two different locations with very different requirements......

Hostile wrote:They are a similar enemy in two different locations with very different requirements.

How would you define "two fronts" other than fighting "in two different locations with very different requirements?"

Kilarin wrote:

Hostile wrote:They are a similar enemy in two different locations with very different requirements.

How would you define "two fronts" other than fighting "in two different locations with very different requirements?"

Hostile flys military aircraft for a living, rumor has it over places like we're talking about here (although he won't confirm or deny details of such activity lest he become duty bound to then kill us )...
so I think he uses terms like 'front' in a more literal, technically correct military context than a bunch of regular guys on a BB for a video game

Will Robinson wrote:Hostile flys military aircraft for a living

Cool! My hats off to anyone brave enough to serve. And I have extreme admiration for anyone good enough to FLY.

Will Robinson wrote:so I think he uses terms like 'front' in a more literal, technically correct military context than a bunch of regular guys on a BB for a video game

No doubt. But I didn't think the question was impertinent, and I'm still interested in the answer. If fighting "in two different locations with very different requirements" isn't fighting in "two fronts", what is?

ccb056 wrote:Yes, the only way we can have peace is if Iran doesn't have the bomb.

We can only have peace if we're all dead. All of us.

Suncho wrote:

ccb056 wrote:Yes, the only way we can have peace is if Iran doesn't have the bomb.

We can only have peace if we're all dead. All of us.

Hit the nail on the head suncho. =)