Support NeoGAF

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Anyone want to take a guess. I think they are higher than I would like maybe but, not immenent at this point. The Administration has to come up with some semblence of an exit plan in Iraq first.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Oil, muslims, and WMDs.

Seems to be the formula in this administration. Granted, I don't think its going to happen, but the possibility and the noise from the press about it is enough to make me wonder.

 

[SlickWilly223]

I doubt we'll go in unless a nuke goes off. Political suicide, drafts, even greater deficits... it could cause a civil war for all we know. A lot of Republicans are already doubting our presence in Iraq, I don't think any American citizen would back an Iran war unless there's damn good reason. Unfortunetely for Bush, WMD evidence won't work this time.

With that said, let me just say that Iraq has more than enough oil to last for quite some time...

But what the fuck do I know, I'm still in Highschool.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Yeah that's what people though about Iraq.

 

[SteveMeister]

Ask again after the Iraqi election.

If it's disrupted in a major way, and the President mentions "Iranian terrorists" being at fault, then it's pretty likely.

 

[firebricks3]

I don't think it'll happen for awhile either. Bush will continue to harrass Iran with threats or some deal will be made so that we'll give them something in exchange for them to stop their Nuclear efforts. (We being US and Europe)

 

[Socreges]

Iran isn't as attractive a scenario was Iraq was, even though it's probably more dangerous. I suspect they'll really give diplomacy a push and ultimately they'll work something out.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Ask again after the Iraqi election.

If it's disrupted in a major way, and the President mentions "Iranian terrorists" being at fault, then it's pretty likely.

yeah, i'm waiting for the 'terrorists /danger to the world / we have a duty / wings of freedom/ etc' spiel to start

 

[Azih]

I don't think so. I mean they *have* to know that Iran is homogenous where Iraq was split along ethnic and factional lines and while Iran is oppressive it is nothing even remotely similar to the Saddam Hussein tyranny.

Anybody invades and they'll have 95% of the population against them and it will be a long bloody road to Tehran. Sure there's a lot of disaffected people and quite a few would like to see the end of Ayatollah rule but um... almost all of them dislike America more.

Add to that the fact that Shias in Iraq and in Pakistan will rise up in furious anger and well... the only thing stupider would be invading Saudi Arabia.

 

[kumanoki]

I really think the more appropriate question should be, "What are the odds of us going into Iran in the next four years?"

I mean, I'm eligible. I'm 28, and six weeks of boot camp will turn a slightly overweight guy like me into a gun-toting bastion of freedom, whether I want it to or not.

How about you?

 

[Macam]

I don't think it's too likely, but you can never say never with this administration. I think there'll be some serious direct involvement with Iran, but I would strongly question military intervention at this point; it doesn't seem like a likely option and I think getting Congressional approval would be severely more difficult this go around given our diplomatic, financial, and military situations.

 

[RiZ III]

Bush is a crazy mo-fo who doesnt seem to care what anyone else says. So.. yea although I don't expect it, it wouldn't suprise me.

 

[explodet]

Freedom 27 - Liberty 15

 

[Drensch]

I don't think any American citizen would back an Iran war unless there's damn good reason. Unfortunetely for Bush, WMD evidence won't work this time.

Are you shitting me? 40% of Americans still belive that Saddam had wmd and that we got them. Coincidentally about that many voted for dipshit.

 

[Socreges]

Freedom 27 - Liberty 15

Sure, but half the country simply swells with pride.

Meanwhile, in Iraq: Freedom! ....HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE FREEDOM!

 

[Bregor]

In force? Very small- we have to many troops tied up in Iraq to mount a new major military operation.

Air raids are far more likely.

 

[FightyF]

Bush can easily convince Americans that an invasion of Iran is justified.

"Al Qaeda is hiding in Iran"
"The perpetrators of 9/11 must face justice"
"Terrorists have only one safe haven in the World...and that's Iran"

Look at his recent language. "Freedom". Funny word, since that's the ONE thing Bush has been butchering since 9/11. American freedoms...there aren't any in many circumstances. Freedom used to mean guilty until presumed innocent, the fact that you get to be represented by a lawyer, the fact that you can plead "not guilty".

Hey...Bush...if you want the World to be "free" then start with your own country.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

you guys oughtta read an article by Thomas P.M Barnett in this month's esquire magazine. he'll give you some good reasons why we should play diplomatic ball with iran instead of attacking.

 

[Crow357]

Here's a Reuters story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10007131

I'd say if Iran doesn't do what the world wants regarding its nuclear energy/weapons program, it'll happen.

 

[soundwave05]

It may happen, but it'd be an extremely unpopular move in the US, even among many conservatives I think.

A lot of people are sick of hearing about Iraq as is.

You have to wonder too, just what the hell is going on in Afghanistan. Remember that place?

Are we sure all the "terrorists" are gone, replaced by McDonalds and Star Bucks and liberated American-friendly women that dress like Britney Spears?

Because invading/attacking is just one part of the issue, you just can't leave afterwards.

I don't think the US would have any allies helping them either. Blair has taken enough shit over the Iraq issue in the UK, I just don't think the Brits want any part of any other war/invasion.

 

[FightyF]

I'd say if Iran doesn't do what the world wants regarding its nuclear energy/weapons program, it'll happen.

How about other countries that do the same? They're safe, right?

 

[Crow357]

How about other countries that do the same? They're safe, right?

Well, I'd say it depends whether or not your country supports terror or not. For instance France has nukes, but they're generally nice to other people. The world doesn't demand that they dismantle their program, because they're not exporting terror to other countries. Iran, however is generally considered by most to support international terror. And when, by all accounts, they have more oil than they know what to do with, and say, "Oh, we just need this because we need to generate power", the rest of us go, "yeah right, and I didn't inhale when I smoked that joint!"

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I just found an article on BBC mostly focusing on why Dick thinks the Iraqis haven't taken back their country <Chris Rock> HE SPINNIN', HE SPINNIN'</Chris Rock>

The article also mentions:

Speaking just before his inauguration, Mr Cheney also said Iran was at the top of his list of world trouble spots.

But he made clear he currently favoured diplomacy in dealing with Tehran.

 

[FightyF]

Well, I'd say it depends whether or not your country supports terror or not. For instance France has nukes, but they're generally nice to other people. The world doesn't demand that they dismantle their program, because they're not exporting terror to other countries. Iran, however is generally considered by most to support international terror. And when, by all accounts, they have more oil than they know what to do with, and say, "Oh, we just need this because we need to generate power", the rest of us go, "yeah right, and I didn't inhale when I smoked that joint!"

Hmm...how about a country like Israel that has terrorized Palestinians?

Secondly, what has Iran done to support terror?

And when, by all accounts, they have more oil than they know what to do with, and say, "Oh, we just need this because we need to generate power", the rest of us go, "yeah right, and I didn't inhale when I smoked that joint!"

You could use Oil to generate electricity, but it's not as clean as Nuclear Energy. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. that are really short on space and are really congested to begin with need Nuclear power. So I don't think the abundance of Oil should be considered to be a reason for them not to have the ability to use Nuclear technology for power use.

Now whether or not they also have Nuclear weapons is another issue, but it is totally unrealistic to ask them to remove their weapons when we condone the same behavior for countries that have openly called them enemies. Asking for unilateral disarmament is totally unrealistic.

 

[Crow357]

Hmm...how about a country like Israel that has terrorized Palestinians?

Isreal's targets are military in nature. Palestine targets babies. Theres a difference.

Secondly, what has Iran done to support terror?

You don't have to search very far to find stories of Iran: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=421

You could use Oil to generate electricity, but it's not as clean as Nuclear Energy. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. that are really short on space and are really congested to begin with need Nuclear power. So I don't think the abundance of Oil should be considered to be a reason for them not to have the ability to use Nuclear technology for power use.

Then I think we should be able to build more nuclear power plants. And if we can't, then they can't.

Now whether or not they also have Nuclear weapons is another issue, but it is totally unrealistic to ask them to remove their weapons when we condone the same behavior for countries that have openly called them enemies. Asking for unilateral disarmament is totally unrealistic.

This is a pre-emptive strike against them using the nukes in the future.

I'm sorry, but nothing you've said has convinced me to let the Iranians have nuclear energy/weapons technology. The very reason that N. Korea has nukes is because the US gave them the technology. I won't mention what administration did that, but I think we all know.

 

[FightyF]

Isreal's targets are military in nature. Palestine targets babies. Theres a difference.

There is much evidence of atrocities committed by IDF soldiers. For example, they have shot and killed Palestinian schoolchildren, for sport in one example. A bus full of Lebonese children were blown up by Israeli missiles. The "military in nature" claim has also been used by Palestinian terrorists when they detonate bombs at military bus stops, which almost always feature regular Israeli citizens.

To ignore one half of this war OF terror, is quite heinous and quite simply evil on your part.

You don't have to search very far to find stories of Iran: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/arti...m?articleid=421

*LOL* please, a reputable source next time, TIA!

Then I think we should be able to build more nuclear power plants. And if we can't, then they can't.

Firstly, I don't think there are limits to how many powerplants the US can have. I'm sure some people feel uncomfortable with them being close to densely populated areas and so there could be law regarding thier locations, but nothing about the number of them.

Secondly, why can't they? Because you can't? What kind of twisted logic is that?

This is a pre-emptive strike against them using the nukes in the future.

How about a pre-emptive strike against the US just in case the US uses nukes in the future?

If Iran was making inflammatory remarks on the World stage, making threats, bullying other peaceful nations, I'd be inclined to have the World down their throats.

But the only nation doing all of the above, happens to be Bushlandistan.

I'm sorry, but nothing you've said has convinced me to let the Iranians have nuclear energy/weapons technology.

There are international rules regarding Nuclear Weaponry, and if Iran has them (I wonder if we'll allow inspectors to find out), they are breaking rules.

BUT, there are countries like Israel, who we KNOW has Nuclear Weaponry programs, and they are breaking the same rules as Iran, yet we don't do anything about it. One reason why Iran has it, is because Israel has it.

It's like asking Pakistan to end it's Nuke programs, while watching India continue with theirs. Pakistan, of course, will never comply. If you ask both to do so, they'd be more open to the idea, as both nations know how pointless and deadly these weapons are when the both have the ability to hit each other.

The very reason that N. Korea has nukes is because the US gave them the technology. I won't mention what administration did that, but I think we all know.

This is news to me...the US gave NK the technology in the first place?

Anyways, I just wanted to make you think more about the situation. The justification for a WAR is clearly weak. Diplomacy can be used to cool down the situation. And for the most part, the only one making this situation bad is Bush himself. During the Clinton Administration, Iran has opened up diplomatic ties and sought to become very friendly with the US. VERY friendly.

It didn't take long to make them enemies. One sentence was all it took. Again, the Bush administration is at fault for creating enemies.

 

[SteveMeister]

Are you shitting me? 40% of Americans still belive that Saddam had wmd and that we got them. Coincidentally about that many voted for dipshit.

Actually roughly 51% of those who voted in the election voted for Bush. If it had only been 40%, Bush wouldn't have been re-elected

 

[Azih]

Frankly there are two major reasons that Iran want nuclear weapons. One is that Israel has them, the other is that it knows that's the only way to keep America from invading for trumped up reasons under a crazy president. Witness the difference between N.Korea and Iraq.

 

[Tazznum1]

It will happen...oh yes....it will happen.

 

[Xenon]

the other is that it knows that's the only way to keep America from invading for trumped up reasons under a crazy president. Witness the difference between N.Korea and Iraq.

Why do people always seem to forget that Iraq tried to take over another country, lost, and sign a treaty in which they did not cooperate with. Also NK happens to be next to China who maybe just maybe should take a leading role in helping stabilize N Korea.

 

[Pug]

I Bush goes anywhere next it will be Syria not Iran.

 

[Cubsfan23]

It really depends on the young population. Nobody there likes the Moolahs (taxi's don't even pick them up :lol ) The only problem is that anybody who shows fierce resistance is immediately killed or imprisoned

 

[Azih]

Why do people always seem to forget that Iraq tried to take over another country, lost, and sign a treaty in which they did not cooperate with.

The major reasons given were WMD and Al-Qaeda links, which were trumped up. Hence, trumped up reasons. If 9/11 hadn't happened then no one would have been interested in attacking Iraq.

Also it happens to be next to China who maybe just maybe should take a leading role in helping stabilize N Korea.

There's a ton of countries around Iraq as well.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Lets file this under:

There WILL be a draft within one year of the election.

An amendment will be passed to ban gay marriage.

Roe v Wade will be overturned.

We will invade Iran.


I am eagerly awaiting the next hyperbolic, doomsday, hand-wringing topic to add to my list.


"HAY GUYZ OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!"


I always wondered what happened to Emo kids when they grew up ... they become liberals.

 

[Azih]

It really depends on the young population. Nobody there likes the Moolahs (taxi's don't even pick them up :lol )

That's ayatollahs, there's a You have to understand that 1) it's a fractured society, there's plenty of support for them as well. 2) Practically everybody who doesn't like the Ayatollahs doesn't like America even more. So y'know they'll turn against the invaders.

The only problem is that anybody who shows fierce resistance is immediately killed or imprisoned

Well it's worse actually, there's no fierce resistance and slight resistance from intellectual types is crushed. But that's not the only problem, not by a long shot.

 

[Xenon]

The major reasons given were WMD and Al-Qaeda links, which were trumped up. Hence, trumped up reasons. If 9/11 hadn't happened then no one would have been interested in attacking Iraq.

I'll give you the WMD. Sure you maybe to find a few quotes were they said that there was a possible connection with Al-Qaeda. But it was NEVER a selling point for the war.

There's a ton of countries around Iraq as well.

:lol :lol :lol :lol yeah and they have always shown great interest in stabalizing their region. :lol

 

[Azih]

I'll give you the WMD. Sure you maybe to find a few quotes were they said that there was a possible connection with Al-Qaeda. But it was NEVER a selling point for the war.

Dude, it was the second biggest point. Doesn't supporting terrorists, harbouring terrorism ring a bell?

Hell in some ways it was the biggest point because that was the rationale for going after Afghanistan (in that case justified).

 

[Xenon]

Dude, it was the second biggest point. Doesn't supporting terrorists, harbouring terrorism ring a bell?(in that case justified).

Which Iraq did. He rewarded terrorists by providing for their families. And the goverment did offer haven to know terrorists. That is different than saying Iraq was linked to Al Queda. Again there were a few comments early on. But it was hardly a main selling point.

 

[Dilbert]

The very reason that N. Korea has nukes is because the US gave them the technology. I won't mention what administration did that, but I think we all know.

Please come up with a source...quickly.

 

[Dilbert]

I am eagerly awaiting the next hyperbolic, doomsday, hand-wringing topic to add to my list.

"HAY GUYZ OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!"

I always wondered what happened to Emo kids when they grew up ... they become liberals.

1) The reason that this topic is in the news is because of a recent New Yorker story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist which stated that the U.S. was sending Special Forces teams into Iran to assess targets. It wasn't just invested by a bunch of "emo kids" with nothing else to do.

2) Knock off the trolls against liberals.

 

[Drensch]

Actually roughly 51% of those who voted in the election voted for Bush. If it had only been 40%, Bush wouldn't have been re-elected

You assume 100% of the electorate voted.

 

[SteveMeister]

You assume 100% of the electorate voted.

Read my post again -- I said 51% of those who voted in the election voted for Bush.

 

[Azih]

Which Iraq did. He rewarded terrorists by providing for their families. And the goverment did offer haven to know terrorists. That is different than saying Iraq was linked to Al Queda. Again there were a few comments early on. But it was hardly a main selling point.

Ok, I can see where this happened. Let's start this over again.

I retract my statement

The major reasons given were WMD and Al-Qaeda links, which were trumped up

because what I actually meant was:

The major reasons given were WMD and terrorism links, which were trumped up.

Alright do-over.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

If action against IRAN was ok'd it would be suicide, we got reservists and national guard fighting in Iraq, real inlistee's and officers in Afgahnistan, huge bases in Korea, japan, and germany. We are spread way too thin. There would be serious upheaval if the pres tried to do such a thing. Not to mention theres no reason to, I dont see the US bum rushing pakistan or india, both countries recently obtained nuclear strike capability.

 

[FightyF]

Things brings up another topic...would Iran be wrong to do a pre-emptive strike on the US in Iraq, for it's own safety?

 

[Stele]

From a currency speculator point of view, going into Iran would be good. I'm moving my assets slowly into Euros and even Chinese RMB. If Bush invades Iran and the dollar collapses, I could make a killing.

 

[snapty00]

Not gonna happen. That is all.

Lots of covert operations naturally, though.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Which Iraq did. He rewarded terrorists by providing for their families. And the goverment did offer haven to known terrorists. That is different than saying Iraq was linked to Al Queda. Again there were a few comments early on. But it was hardly a main selling point.

He sure did for Isreal but, you know what I tell you right now and you can quote me. Fuck Isreal. Their problems aren't my problems (well they are now but...) that was not an immediate threat to the US. Again I will ask anyone who thinks this was such a good fucking idea to come over here and live the experince. The leadship is plan bonkers on and I for one can't wait to see how the spin the election on the 31.

Things brings up another topic...would Iran be wrong to do a pre-emptive strike on the US in Iraq, for it's own safety?

If you abide by the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes then not at all. But, that isn't the reality. They could try as a conventional force and I doubt they'd get out 20 miles into Iraq or Afghanistan before they were obliterated.

 

[bob_arctor]

*Puts on Tin Foil Hat*

1) Syd Hersh story leaking claims of US covert-ops currently in Iran.
2) Pentagon states claims outlandish and "full of holes"--though they never outright say they aren't doing anything.
3) Day after Pentagon statements, NY Times runs story saying the US "scolds" Chinese firms for supplying Iran with $$/business for missiles.
4) Day after that, and a day prior to Bush's Inauguration, front pages of Daily News and NY Post (and I think even the Times) mention 4 Chinese "terrorists" on their way to either Boston or New York to detonate a "dirty bomb". Article themselves state that the anonymous phone tip is just "one of thousands" each day, that it is more than likely a hoax. Despite giving specific location of attacks, the "Terror Alert" color-code is not raised one damn pigment.
5)Day of Inauguration, Cheney speaks on the Don Imus radio show and states Iran is a definite concern that must be looked at, relays the possibility of Israel themselves going in and taking them out, yet reassures us that diplomacy and UN sanctions will be the 1st options.


Personally, I think the propanganda campaign has already begun--all these seemingly non-related "news" items do is instill fear of looming threat of Iran as well as bring China to the forefront (the dirty bomb story really gets me).

 

[Guileless]

I have read Hersh's article in The New Yorker. There is not going to be a large-scale invasion of Iran anytime soon. The main reason is simply that the US military is incapable of doing it right now.

The Hersh article is about the broad disagreements about what to do with Iran--both in the US government and with Europe. The newsworthy part is his reporting of the military scouting for the nuclear sites in order to try special forces and limited bombing strikes to disable or destroy them.

This is necessary because Iran learned from Israel's bombing of Iraq's reactor in the early 1980s, which crippled the Iraqi nuclear program. The Iranian sites are underground, widely dispersed, and located next to civilian population centers. Bombing alone would be ineffective or cause too much collateral damage, so the special forces teams would have to be used. Hence the advance scouting.

would Iran be wrong to do a pre-emptive strike on the US in Iraq, for it's own safety?

What do you mean by "wrong"? It would never happen anyway; the mullahs' best weapon in any confrontation will be the people ranting about evil American imperialism and unilateralism. If they attack first, even the appearance of victimhood will be gone.