Will Bush bomb Iran?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    If you know a way I could compel them let me know.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    I don't see how he can, American public opinion being what it is, and Bush having only another year in office. Perhaps I overestimate us, but I can't see Bush justifying Iran the same way he did Iraq and people buying it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    We sincerely hope not ... but just one major terror attack against the US, real or imagined, can swing the tide.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    We'll attack after an overt act of war, or at the behest of Iranians who invite us to help them do what they can not do alone.

    Either way, most of you will be simple spectators not part of any real-world equation.
     
  8. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    They will not only lose, but lose alot of support and have a backup of extra insurgents if they do try to bomb iran

    and if usa bomb iran, israel will suffer.
     
  9. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    All that granted, how is Bush going to get approval for military action from Congress? Because that is what he would need, and that is something that has yet to be explained.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He already has all the approval he needs, from the Military Authorization that allowed him (in his view) to launch the Iraq invasion. That has not been repealed.
     
  11. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    That is, he doesn't declare war but claims it as a police action? Again, he's got a year to go and I don't think he could get great public support in the absence of a clear aggressive action on Iran's part. Perhaps this is overoptimistic.
     
  12. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    How is this applicable to Iran?
     
  13. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,635
    Uh because the strongest rule? Iran probably isn't even developing nuclear weapons, the US is just trying to scare its citizens into supporting its warmongering in persuit of $$
     
  14. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,635
    Like at WW2 when they sent a passenger ship to the Germans... I wonder why they're even bothering with all that nuke crap. Just sacrifice a few americans and boom you got 10.000's of men volunteering and willing to join the war against Iran.
     
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    The president can do anything he wants with the military for, I think, sixty days. Beyond that he needs congressional approval.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He already has the majority of Americans thinking that Iran is the major foreign supporter of terrorism in Iraq, the major source of terrorist support wolrdwide, is about to develop nuclear weapons, and is run by a crazy man with a jihadist mentality who would sacrifice his country to kill the infidels or nuke Israel.

    W won't try invasion - his generals would, finally, rebel, I think. He will bomb. Half his intellectual supporters think bombing would win them the war anyway.
    Same way it is applicable to Iraq - after four years now, no threat from Iraq, and no UN Resolutions visible.
     
  17. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    Except the stubborn fact that the resolution says Iraq and not Iran. (And a thousand other reasons.)

    The officer corps isn't going anywhere no matter what Bush does. Policy is irrelevant. We're here to obey the Constitution, not assert our own political agenda like some crappy junta.

    I agree that the most military action we would see against Iran would be airstrikes against the major nuclear facilities, primarily because that would be all that is necessary to set the Iranian nuclear program back by a decade or more. I don't consider this a likely contingency, however.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's easily handled - blame for the insurgency in Iraq is already laid on Iran, so bombing Iran would be part of the same war.

    And an incident with Iran itself should be easy to set up - then: protecting the US forces in Iraq, see ?

    We already have a list of targets - the nukes, of course, but they are hardened and difficult. We might destroy the civilian power plant, but the military program would be more difficult if there is one (we apparently don't know where it is).

    But also the power plants, sewer and water, port and trade facilities, oil company infrastructure not owned or managed by Halliburton or other allied companies, etc.
     
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Then rush in to "free" the people and rebuild their poor battered country using construction companys run by Bush's pals. Where have we seen that before?
     
  20. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    I haven't seen the polls on that. But public support for the war in Iraq is fairly low, most people realize that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Americans seem to realize how stretched thin we are.

    He'd get support for that., sure. Especially if it's "taking out Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons."

    Somehow I don't think it works that way. Iran is still a seperate nation. But he does have the ability to pass it off as a small scale matter, a "police action" as was done in the Cold War, and I believe that as Commander in Chief he has the authority to use the military that way for a limited amount of time.

    Anyone know the details on this?
     
  21. Outback Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    You mean, of course, that the majority of public opinion is currently that there were no WMD's because the west did not find any by the time they were on the ground in Iraq.
    This does not mean there were any, nor does it mean there were not. It means only that the public is generally convinced that there were not, without having any of the advantage of intelligence and satellite information that the US government had at the time, and at the same time being utterly convinced of the ability and willingness of the west to deliberately mislead its own public. Amongst those latter believers, many have never considered why the US government might have found it necessary to embark on such a course of action.

    The type of cynicism openly displayed on forums such as this one is oft mistaken for rational and informed thought, whereas it is in fact only another socially-acceptable bias.

    A more correct philosophical cynicism would be to believe in neither the existence or non-existence of WMD without proof either way. That there were none found by the time they were actively searched for without hindrance is proof for neither belief. The only rational belief it possible for a man not in an informed position to have is that he does not know, but suspects one way or the other, dependant entirely on his political inclination and ideological sympathies.

    Public support for the war in Iraq is low simply because many westerners think little beyond the here and now, and their own comfort and security.
    To begin a war in Iraq, with the danger of that war becoming something far more in time, is perhaps matched only in potential danger in doing nothing at all. The majority of westerners are against any war with the middle east simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing, and because doing nothing now will in all probability have no adverse result during their own lifetimes. It may well be that in the future the middle east will become something far more dangerous than it is now and logistically uncontrollable. If that transpires, any question of ideology or philosophy on whether or not the west should seek to tame it will become moot, in the face of a complete inability to do so.

    The war in Iraq is a result of fear in the face of potential danger. WMD, religion and oil are some of the faces that fear has been given, in order to make it more acceptable to the public from any individual standpoint.

    If the USA was free to act, unhindered by politics or by its own espoused ideals, both Iraq and Iran could be reduced to smoking ruins in a very short space of time. Make no mistake on that point. That this conflict has been handly ineptly is more a result of public opinion and the fear of being seen as a hypocrite than any inability of the US military to conquer.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Wait a minute: are you claiming that nuking Iran and Iraq over fear of WMDs that may or may not have even existed (according to you) would have been competent ?
     
  23. Outback Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I'm sure you'd point out where I advocated the use of nukes if I asked.

    No, the US has other options. MOABs, carpet bombing, whatever. It simply doesn't gel with you that they have been very retrospect in their handling of this war, has it? That the opinion of the public and the world in general has prevented them from unleashing hell on Iraq?

    Now let me see. Are you saying that you, with complete faith and knowledge, without any reserve or doubt whatsoever, are convinced that the US lied about WMD from the very beginning?
     

Share This Page