What...the...hell...is...Bush...thinking...with...Iran???

Discussion in 'World Events' started by te jen, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    I simply cannot fathom what BushCo thinks they are going to get if they go after Iran. The U.S. is hanging on by nine, no, eight fingernails in Iraq and now they want a piece of Iran? And publically contemplating the support of an Israeli attack, or even a joint attack - it boggles the mind.

    This is not even fringy paranoia - it was in Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/).

    I thought I was concerned about the Iraq War - this has me scared shitless. Iran has got front-line U.S. made stuff, a tough army and lots and lots of missiles. We really will be decimated in the next round unless Bush decides to start throwing nukes around.

    Has anyone read anything more concrete on the Iran story?

    The U.S. is on a psychopathic toboggan ride - better hang on...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. M-16 Registered Militant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    cough*greater israel*cough
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    "We have to start accepting that Iran will probably have the bomb," says one senior Israeli source. There's only one solution, he says: "Look at ways to make sure it's not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger."

    Oh yes Israel now she is an honest one now isn’t she? It’s in Israel’s best interests to hype up the “intelligence” on Iran’s nuclear capability like she did with Iraq’s. Israel attack Iran would be VERY hard to do even with Israel’s advanced state of military affairs. Only the US could do something against Iran that would be more then a mere symbolic attack. The problem is that not all of Iran’s nuclear facilities are known and they are underground. Rumors are going around that the US may strike Iran in October before the elections probably to show that Bush is a man who takes no shit…etc. The problem is that the situation in neighboring Iraq may pour into a real war in which Iran is directly involved. Iran is no little puppy either her military is a much greater menace then Iraq’s ever was. The US better play her cards right, or else the whole Middle East will denigrate into war.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pangloss More 'pop' than a Google IPO! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    767
    But I thought your position was that it's going to denigrate into war anyway.
     
  8. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Not for the general middle east...
     
  9. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    This has been building for quite a while now, prior to the attack on Iraq. The start was Bush’s “axis of evil” declaration in January 2002. Then stories that seemed to be coming from the Bush press machine. Now it’s taken on a life of its own, as surely planned.

    The US may be stalled in Iraq but BushCo is not. They are reaping unprecedented profits. Peace and democracy was not a goal in Iraq. Bush knew stability was unlikely because a dictatorship is needed to steal the oil.

    I disagree. The US can quickly annex key Iranian infrastructure with one hand behind its back. Like Iraq, it will then devolve into another quagmire and boost terrorism but such is a dream for BushCo’s "defense" subsidiaries. The oil will still flow into BushCo’s tankers because that will be the highest priority.
     
  10. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Well, face it, the best products USA may offer to the global marketplace are its Army, Air Force and Navy. Everything else (except agriculture) will not last in the corporate free trade world. Division of labor. Arab's oil, USA muscles, Chinese labor.... Does your country have anything to offer to the new world?
     
  11. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    No. There are possibilities (like the development of technologies that lead to an end to carbon-based energy) but war seems to be America's leading export now.

    It would be a clever ruse on BushCo's part to help Israel attack Iranian targets. The U.S. could provide intelligence, air cover, electronic countermeasures and some AWACS information to allow an Israeli strike force to get to the targets. Then the U.S. can say "gee, it wasn't us!". America would most likely have to go in and finish the Israeli job, though what kind or reception the U.S. Air Force would have courtesy of the Iranian Air Force is open to debate.

    Of course, stirring the hornet's nest would result in an immediate counterattack by Iranian missiles on U.S. forces plus a probable invasion of the eastern Shi'a provinces of the former Iraq.

    It is one thing for America to conquer a prostrate Iraq, which brought tears to no-one's eyes in the Arab world because of the limitless opportunities it opened up, and something else altogether to attack Iran. For one thing, they have a fully stocked military unexhausted from two years of war. For another, Iran is about four times the size of Iraq and sits astride the approaches to the Persian Gulf.

    I guess that the conquest of Iran is to be an expected chapter of the Bush playbook. America is hanging on in Iraq, scraping by in Afghanistan, is trying to keep Musharraf in line and in power, and needs things to remain "stable" in Saudi and the Gulf emirates. The common geographical thread is Iran. If BushCo can seize Iran in a hostile takeover (funny how business terminology is similar to military terminology) then the way to the Caspian Basin lies open. It also would tear the heart out of a potential pan-Islamic geography.

    Come to think of it, mixing it up with Iran would probably guarantee a Bush re-election if it is done close enough to November 2nd. Americans sure as hell won't want to change horses in the middle of an all-out war.

    I don't see where the U.S. is going to get the manpower or the materiel for a new invasion. Even if a conscription law were slapped together on November 3rd, it would take a bare minumum of three months before draftees would start hitting the sand - it could be all over by then. Unless BushCo is willing to use tactical nukes to do what an armored division does......
     
  12. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Well, R&D is being cut/outsourced with the same vigor as manufacturing. There are no reasons whatsoever for corporations to keep R&D in the US. Secondly, foreigners dominate U.S. sci./eng. labor market. The very same foreigners would cost much less in their native countries.
     
  13. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "Iran is about four times the size of Iraq and sits astride the approaches to the Persian Gulf."

    Indeed: As during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi oil infrastructure is well in reach- but with less precedent and more impact, Hormuz could become dire straits for US Navy carrier groups and Exxon/Mobil tankers. Iran really can hurt America more than the converse- not in terms of lives but fortunes.

    For the American public and the leaders we default to, more "tough talk", and the consequences seem to "lie" ahead. We are a nation for which any retreat from our newly overbearing international mode of behavior is an embarrassment to be avoided and delay at almost any cost. To back down is to admit being wrong, and I'm worried that if there is a 2nd term for Bush, their rhetoric, if not planning, can place them into a position where another losing war is initiated, and this time with more immediate and devastating blowback.

    US policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel have shown that the Bush 43 Administration doesn't "get it", regarding how to relate to the Mideast without introducing extreme antagonism and upheaval. US pre-election polls are showing that much of the American public doesn't get it either. Bush supporters are finding the world too confusing, and the recent past too embarrassing, to think about alternatives now: "Stay the Course! We're America, Dammit- Who dares to challenge us!"

    We're in for a World of Hurt.
     
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Read the "Left Behind" series, that's what Bush has in mind for our future.
     
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    What is the most fearful thing that would happen should the US/IAF attack Iran is that Iran could invade Southern Iraq, and a huge multitude of American soldiers will die in a real war with a popular uprising in Shi’a Iraq the US stands no chance no amount of military might can quell a populist uprising, and along with that would begin a true Islamic revolution, and the regimes in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. would be truly at threat because should this scenario happen there would a pan-Islamic effort to oust the US out of Iraq, and governments that would be complacent would have to face the ravages of their own militaries, and populations. You never know maybe the attack against Iran is supposed to cause this so the real war can happen…no more pretensions.
     
  16. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    Not sure how it will play out. If the U.S. / Israelis take out Iranian reactors and processing facilities, the quickest response would be to close the Gulf to shipping (easy) and start lobbing missiles into the Green Zone (medium) and Tel Aviv (hard - the Shihab-3 missile can reach Israeli territory, but it's not real accurate - unless you load a nuke on board). That takes care of the chaos. Then eastern Iraqi provincial leaders could "invite" Iranian forces to come in to "provide security". Maybe even declare an independent Shi'a-stan, or just ask for annexation to Iran. Doesn't matter. The U.S. doesn't have the people to fight the Iranians in front and an insurgency behind and at all sides.

    I can't imagine a direct confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces - the Americans would be heavily outnumbered and I wonder if American airpower would tip the balance.


    Oh yeah? You and whose army?
     
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Not sure how it will play out. If the U.S. / Israelis take out Iranian reactors and processing facilities, the quickest response would be to close the Gulf to shipping (easy) and start lobbing missiles into the Green Zone (medium) and Tel Aviv (hard - the Shihab-3 missile can reach Israeli territory, but it's not real accurate - unless you load a nuke on board).

    That alone is not enough, do you honestly believe that that would be the end of the story. A tit for tat scenario, once Iran has done her damage the story is over? There will be reprisals by the US, and Israel for that matter against Iran for attacking them after their attacks…alas war. Thus it would be in Iran’s best interest to take the initiative against the US in Iraq, and deal the US her blows there instead of being on Iranian territory.

    The U.S. doesn't have the people to fight the Iranians in front and an insurgency behind and at all sides.

    That is true the Iranian can continually pump in men from across the border, and even with US airpower it would not stop. I don’t see an Iranian tank invasion, that would be too obvious and against the US it would lose in a conventional war. But having special forces, “sleeper cells” and VietCong esqe tactics against the US.

    I can't imagine a direct confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces - the Americans would be heavily outnumbered and I wonder if American airpower would tip the balance.

    Imo the answer is no, because airpower strikes primarily at targets, not individuals.
     
  18. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Yep, if we attack Iran, the whole Middle East is gonna rise up and swarm on us and we'll be trapped. It'll look worse than what happened down in Somalia and then drastic(nuclear) measures will have to be taken since we'd have so many people down there.

    These guys in charge still aren't thinking in Islamic terms but rather still think we're liberators, such a poor excuse. Thinking the Arabs will have our backs? Yeah friggin right! It'll be all of the ME vs the US and then cowboy Bush won't wanna withdrawl due to idiotic pride so he'll draft people and continue sending them in and we'll all be dying for yet another useless war. I have no problem being drafted to defend my homeland but to fight some war like that which shouldn't have happened, hell no. If all of the above happens, as much as I'd hate to say it, I hope Bush'n'Co gets assassinated.

    - N
     
  19. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    No, of course not. The escalation would not end there - it might even bring on a general regional war as Neildo suggested.

    As for wishing as assassination (two asses? Never mind...) you'd better watch out... the SS is looking for a guy out my way who made threats against the President the other day. Though, looked at purely objectively, such an event would greatly change the political dynamic of the election....

    Here's my nightmare scenario - a group of second-generation Iranian- or Iraqi-Americans, Arabs anyway, young Muslim men, professional looking, no accent, U.S. citizens, whatever... gets a few Stingers or RPGs and have a go at high-level Bush administration officials. Maybe even the man himself. Successful or not, you now have a domestic insurrection on your hands and the perfect excuse for really tightening the screws on the Constitution.

    Off on a tangent, though. The only way the U.S. could in my opinion fuck with Iran is if we used tactical nukes and the help of neighboring countries (Pakistan? one or more of the Gulf states? Georgia?). The bottom line is that Iran stands as the greatest threat to BushCo's future in Iraq, and I don't think they can tolerate that. Besides, Iran / Iraq?, too close for the American sheeple to know the difference anyway.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2004
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    we are talking about a man here who
    A) has a lesser intelegence than an ape
    B) has a huge budget deficate
    C) has a really weak econamy
    D) has a bad track record on basically everything
    E) is stuck in not one but TWO wars he cant win

    and F) is about to go to the polls

    i think there is a VERY good chance that he will see this as his only way to get back into office and will put that above not just the lives of the Iranian citizans but the american ones as well

    really its no different than what the then premure of victoria did in the ronalled ryan case except that he only killed ONE innocent. Bush will kill MILLIONS
     
  21. Logically Unsound wwaassuupp and so on Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,817
    to summarize:

    you put in the word 'thinking'.
    i havent read the rest of the thread, but i bet that (^) summarized it friggin well.
     
  22. Locke Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    A) has a lesser intelegence than an ape

    Maybe you should use a spell checker before you expose your "intelegence" to everyone else. It never ceases to crack me up when people who truly aren't intelligent think that they're so much smarter than the president. He went to fricking Yale and Harvard, where did you go? He graduated near the middle of his class at both Universities. Do you think you could do the same with your unbelievable "intelegence"?

    I know the Bush is an idiot meme is popular with the left, but Jesus, maybe only the smart liberals should use it.
     
  23. dkb218 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    793
    while the spelling may be lacking, the points are understood.
     

Share This Page