Iran

[Persian Pride]

Yeah it looks like it doesn't it??

Well I guess it's all down to that ex-coke head Bush. Perhaps god will talk to him and tell him what to do again..!!!! Can you imagine what would happen if the Iranian leader announced that god had told him to bomb a certain country??? How come Bush gets away with it...??
Perhaps when Bush has made his mind up he might give one of his famous speeches....
George W. Bush: In my sentences I go where no man has gone before.
George W. Bush:
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.
George W. Bush:
He can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.
George W. Bush:
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
George W. Bush:
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
George W. Bush:
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
George W. Bush:
There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like. [12/13/2002]
George W. Bush:
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
George W. Bush:
The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.
George W. Bush:
If you find a neighbor in need, you're responsible for serving that neighbor in need, you're responsible for loving a neighbor just like you'd like to love yourself. [11/16/2002]
George W. Bush:
We are ready for any unforeseen event which may or may not happen.
George W. Bush:
The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.






And this is the so called leader of the free world. God save us all.....👍

 

[Persian Pride]

I thought America was anti-colonialist.... lol 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah it looks like it doesn't it??

Well I guess it's all down to that ex-coke head Bush. Perhaps god will talk to him and tell him what to do again..!!!! Can you imagine what would happen if the Iranian leader announced that god had told him to bomb a certain country??? How come Bush gets away with it...??
Perhaps when Bush has made his mind up he might give one of his famous speeches....
George W. Bush: In my sentences I go where no man has gone before.
George W. Bush:
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.
George W. Bush:
He can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.
George W. Bush:
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
George W. Bush:
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
George W. Bush:
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
George W. Bush:
There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like. [12/13/2002]
George W. Bush:
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
George W. Bush:
The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.
George W. Bush:
If you find a neighbor in need, you're responsible for serving that neighbor in need, you're responsible for loving a neighbor just like you'd like to love yourself. [11/16/2002]
George W. Bush:
We are ready for any unforeseen event which may or may not happen.
George W. Bush:
The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.


And this is the so called leader of the free world. God save us all.....👍

And this all has to do with Iran how? That is like Republicans saying CLinton didn't get Bin Laden because he was fooling around with Monica.

The reasoning behind having an offensive strategy in place for Iran is because they are talking very aggresively about the US and their allies. On top of that talks with North Korea and Iran have both led to giving them something to back down only to have them start back up after a few months to a year and demand more.

How is that different than nuclear blackmail? The international community gives more and more and somehow we all end up right back where we were before.

On top of all that planning for a situation is not the same as actually acting. There have been stories of thd Pentagon war gaming attacks on every European country, ally or not, for years. This story gained more noteriety because it is Iran and they have been doing some big posturing as of late.

As I have said before, planning an attack is not planning an invasion. For all we know it is planning some cruise missiles on some nuclear reseach facilities. Why the idea of that would work any anti-Bush people into a frenzy is beyond me, they didn't say a word when Clinton repeatedly did it in Iraq.

And as was said before it is highly unlikely that in the current political climate President Bush would get the approval for another full-scale war.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Whatever you say about it, George Bush should stop his crazy stupid bull ideas, doesn't matter if it's good or not, he just appears to be an agressive little kid to most of the people now...

 

[Solid Fro]

Whatever you say about it, George Bush should stop his crazy stupid bull ideas, doesn't matter if it's good or not, he just appears to be an agressive little kid to most of the people now...

Oh, so America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't? I wouldn't expect much more from Old Europe anyway.

If you can get away from the media tabloids, could you post some examples of how President Bush is an "aggressive little kid?" Most of what the president does must be approved by some other branch of the government like Congress for passing laws or the Pentagon for military action.

 

[FoolKiller]

Whatever you say about it, George Bush should stop his crazy stupid bull ideas, doesn't matter if it's good or not, he just appears to be an agressive little kid to most of the people now...

What did this add to the thread?

I haven't used the "whatever!" argument strategy since I was a little kid. I even made a stupid hand gesture with it.

However, I'll take what I have here and go with.

Good or not Bush should stop with his ideas? How does that make any sense at all? So if he has a great idea that will solve a problem he should just stop because many in the international community, or at least your part of Holland, don't like him and think that he is a bully? So, he should just resign from being president?

Out of curiosity what are his "stupid bull ideas," as they fit into this thread, because I want to see what your perspective is on this.

 

[ledhed]

Somehow having elected governments and democracy in two of the most despotic and war torn countrys in the Middle east is a " bull " idea ? I know europe is a bit nuts at times ...like when you are invading each other and doing your " ethnic cleansing " every spring or so ..but try to explain to me how showing the rest of the middle Eastern countrys that democracy works better than blowing your self up is a bad thing . change in the region wont happen over night , we have hundreds of years of European meddling and colonialism to undo . So put your high horse back in the barn and brush up on your history a bit .

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Attacking Iran now too? There will be an enormous amount of deaths again, another 2 trillion gone on another war, and no one knows whats the reason of all this stuff? It needs to be cleared up, war is not a thing like "lets go to war and it's over and Iran wont ever pose a threat to the US anymore", war is where thousands of people go through hell in another area. At least have some reasons for that instead of just want to fight without a clear reason. The reason of the war is also the same reason why some families lost their loved ones, so please let there be a GOOD REASON to go into war with Iran.

It was all over the news here when the Iraq war was being fought out, that no clear signs of mass destruction weapons had been found yet. That must've really hurt for the families and soldiers who experienced this...dont let that happen again.

Seems like Bush is forgetting what goes on in a war. He just doesn't realise what he's doing to others now....honestly, if you compare the amount of families affected by 9/11 and the war....the total number of deaths and stuff, I think we should regret going into war more than having 9/11.
And the war isn't a baypack for 9/11 anyway, the terrorists were in Afganistan at that moment, so I dont see what has really been achieved with Iraq now.....

 

[FoolKiller]

Attacking Iran now too?

You are aware that we had been "attacking" Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, right? You and I both have no clue what the language means or that planning means anything other than making a plan in the event that we need to retaliate for something.

It has long been a fear that Iran may make some sort of an attack on American troops in Iraq and "planning strikes" could be something for that event or it could just be dropping a few strategic bombs on nuclear research facilities that we know about, which is what we had been doing to Iraq for ten years and no one said a peep.

On top of all that Bush cannot march troops into Iran without approval from Congress, so it will have been agreed upon by the representatives of the people of the United States.

When will non-Americans get it through their heads that Bush is not a dictator and cannot just go invading countries without the approval of his own country?

Edit: You are aware that the US also has plans to strike Holland, as well as every other country on the map, if necessary, right? These are plans that have been designed and redesigned since World War II ended. So until I have a date and time for an Iranian strike I am not putting much stock in it.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

You are aware that we had been "attacking" Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, right? You and I both have no clue what the language means or that planning means anything other than making a plan in the event that we need to retaliate for something.

Thats why the question, I didn't say it was going to happen, I just said it would be VERY WRONG to start it.

It has long been a fear that Iran may make some sort of an attack on American troops in Iraq and "planning strikes" could be something for that event or it could just be dropping a few strategic bombs on nuclear research facilities that we know about, which is what we had been doing to Iraq for ten years and no one said a peep.

American troops should just get out of there at some point, so there's no point in attacking them if they will go at some point anyway.

On top of all that Bush cannot march troops into Iran without approval from Congress, so it will have been agreed upon by the representatives of the people of the United States.

Still means that if Bush thinks this he's doing something pretty stupid, why? I just explained in my post above...

When will non-Americans get it through their heads that Bush is not a dictator and cannot just go invading countries without the approval of his own country?

What about the citizens of Iran if the attack will happen? THEY will have to go through everything, not you. He's not a dictator for you, but he IS in some way to the Iraqi (spelling?) people, and will become in some way to the people of Iran.

Edit: You are aware that the US also has plans to strike Holland, as well as every other country on the map, if necessary, right? These are plans that have been designed and redesigned since World War II ended. So until I have a date and time for an Iranian strike I am not putting much stock in it.

Thats stupid, WOII is over and I'm sure the attack on Iran is 100 times more likely to happen instead of the US attacking Holland with plans dating back from WOII.

 

[FoolKiller]

Thats why the question, I didn't say it was going to happen, I just said it would be VERY WRONG to start it.

American troops should just get out of there at some point, so there's no point in attacking them if they will go at some point anyway.

Still means that if Bush thinks this he's doing something pretty stupid, why? I just explained in my post above...

What about the citizens of Iran if the attack will happen? THEY will have to go through everything, not you. He's not a dictator for you, but he IS in some way to the Iraqi (spelling?) people, and will become in some way to the people of Iran.

I can sum all this up into one sentence for you. War is bad in general and there is no reason that can justify the innocent lives that will be lost during a war, so Bush is stupid because he started a war.

First of all, Bush isn't very likely to go to Congress or the UN and say, "Hey y'all, we need to attack Iran becasuse I think it's a good idea. I have plenty of strategery set up because we have been planning since December of '05." You act like these things are done for fun or just because.

Second of all, in war there are deaths, many of them civilian. It is a well understood fact. Bush himself has admitted that. At the same time there are times when war is necessary.

Thats stupid, WOII is over and I'm sure the attack on Iran is 100 times more likely to happen instead of the US attacking Holland with plans dating back from WOII.

WWII was the reason why we began doing that. After WWII America decided to create the most powerful military and be prepared for any eventuality. The plans for possibly needing to attack any given country around teh world aren't old, they constantly rework them with war games time and time again. It isn't stupid to be prepared. If someone decided to invade Holland we would have plans, based upon recent war gaming, that would allow us to go in and kick him back out.

My point on this is that the plannig a strike against Iran report could just be that, the military reworking their war games like they always do. The only difference here is someone caught word of them doing it as they were doing it and with the current political climate ran with the story like it was something it wasn't.

It comes down to finding that the US has a plan to attack a country means nothing when they have plans to be able to attack anywhere on the globe if needed. Doing this means that within a few days we can have covert ops gaining intelligence from inside and air raids ready within a week.

Freaking out over this story and using it as an excuse to call Bush an idiot, when you don't even know if it is on his orders, is foolish. The story was extremely vague and had no proper details to tell us anything factual.

On top of all of this the report uses terms such as "supposed plan," "a probability," and "Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete." In fact the only evidence used to support this is another news story that couldn't be verified from a year ago.

It all looks suspicious and doubtful.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

I can sum all this up into one sentence for you. War is bad in general and there is no reason that can justify the innocent lives that will be lost during a war, so Bush is stupid because he started a war.

First of all, Bush isn't very likely to go to Congress or the UN and say, "Hey y'all, we need to attack Iran becasuse I think it's a good idea. I have plenty of strategery set up because we have been planning since December of '05." You act like these things are done for fun or just because.

Second of all, in war there are deaths, many of them civilian. It is a well understood fact. Bush himself has admitted that. At the same time there are times when war is necessary.


WWII was the reason why we began doing that. After WWII America decided to create the most powerful military and be prepared for any eventuality. The plans for possibly needing to attack any given country around teh world aren't old, they constantly rework them with war games time and time again. It isn't stupid to be prepared. If someone decided to invade Holland we would have plans, based upon recent war gaming, that would allow us to go in and kick him back out.

My point on this is that the plannig a strike against Iran report could just be that, the military reworking their war games like they always do. The only difference here is someone caught word of them doing it as they were doing it and with the current political climate ran with the story like it was something it wasn't.

It comes down to finding that the US has a plan to attack a country means nothing when they have plans to be able to attack anywhere on the globe if needed. Doing this means that within a few days we can have covert ops gaining intelligence from inside and air raids ready within a week.

Freaking out over this story and using it as an excuse to call Bush an idiot, when you don't even know if it is on his orders, is foolish. The story was extremely vague and had no proper details to tell us anything factual.

On top of all of this the report uses terms such as "supposed plan," "a probability," and "Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete." In fact the only evidence used to support this is another news story that couldn't be verified from a year ago.

It all looks suspicious and doubtful.

First of all, war is a tactic and thats why it can be used sometimes, and thats why I'm not saying "war is bad and you cant justify it". That looks dumb too. It's just not worth it in this case.

Bush already did something very stupid and that was attacking Iraq so well.....I'm not calling him stupid over something never happened, it just happened and it MIGHT happen again.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's just not worth it in this case.

Referring to Iran specifically there is no evidence to make an argument on because it isn't an issue, but I would hope that if President Bush chose to go to war and Congress approved it there would be good evidence and reasoning.

Bush already did something very stupid and that was attacking Iraq so well.....I'm not calling him stupid over something never happened, it just happened and it MIGHT happen again.

Iraq just belongs in another thread, so I am trying to avoid it here.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Referring to Iran specifically there is no evidence to make an argument on because it isn't an issue, but I would hope that if President Bush chose to go to war and Congress approved it there would be good evidence and reasoning.


Iraq just belongs in another thread, so I am trying to avoid it here.

I'm just judging something with the things I learned in the past from Iraq. I can use it as an arguement here cant I? Otherwise the thread is just pointless cause people can only judge this topic by the things happened in the past.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm just judging something with the things I learned in the past from Iraq. I can use it as an arguement here cant I? Otherwise the thread is just pointless cause people can only judge this topic by the things happened in the past.

That's what I have been trying to say is that without more info all we can do is make assumptions and that quickly turns into people calling political leaders, usually President Bush, names.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

I do have more info but it belongs in another thread if I hear it correctly.

 

[Melaneimoon]

Can WMDs be far behind? If they get them, will they use them, and if so, on whom?

What exactly should we fear...

There's only one country that has ever actually used nukes.

Oh yes, that was a totally different situation, ofcourse, how stupid of me.

🤬

 

[Solid Fro]

What exactly should we fear...

There's only one country that has ever actually used nukes.

Nope, incorrect.

Several countries have used nuclear weapons. The United States, Soviet Union, France, United Kingdom, China, India and Pakistan have all used nuclear weapons.

Maybe you should use better wording next time.

 

[Zardoz]

Nope, incorrect.

Several countries have used nuclear weapons. The United States, Soviet Union, France, United Kingdom, China, India and Pakistan have all used nuclear weapons.

Maybe you should use better wording next time.

How would you have worded it?

_______________________________________

Edit:

I get the impression that the guys who are running Iran these days are having a lot of fun as they taunt, threaten, provoke, and scare us. I think this is their idea of a good time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1687381,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10858242/site/newsweek/

 

[Solid Fro]

Only one country has used nuclear weapons in an act of war. That is how I would have worded it.

 

[Diego440]

How about "Only one country has used nuclear weapons against another"... or "only one country has attacked another with nuclear weapons"... or even yet "only one country has actually used WMD against another"

 

[Touring Mars]

I thought I'd change the title of this thread from 'US Planning Military Strike Against Iran', to just 'Iran', and encourage further debate/posting about any aspect of Iran or Iranian foriegn policy/news in this thread, rather than starting similar or related threads.

Obviously, Iran has been in the news of late for a variety of reasons, not least it's decision to restart it's uranium-enrichement program.

But also, in a number of recent, high-profile statements, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has turned up the anti-Israeli rhetoric to fever pitch. Now, it seems he is looking to gather support for his highly controversial, and some may say, downright inflammatory views on the Holocaust, by staging a conference about Holocaust denial...

Article here...

For me, the whole issue of Holocaust denial, is a stark example of the consequences of failing to recognise evidence as evidence. Taken alone, Ahmadinejad's view point that the holocaust never happened are easily dismissed as nonsense. But taken in the context of Ahmadinejad's desire to see Israel 'wiped off the map', his stance on holocaust denial is extremely dangerous and irresponsible. Where he may have legitimate reasons to be opposed to the presence (and location) of the state of Israel, there is absolutely no legitimacy in Holocaust denial...

 

[niky]

How about "Only one country has used nuclear weapons against another"... or "only one country has attacked another with nuclear weapons"... or even yet "only one country has actually used WMD against another"

I do believe chemical weapons and nerve agents were used by both sides in World War II... As Viper Zero puts it, let's just say "only one country has used nuclear weapons in war" and leave it at that.

I watched his speech on Nuclear research, and this guy is extremely worrying. He talks out of both sides of his mouth... blah blah peaceful use of nuclear energy, then blah blah double standard on nuclear weapons... oh, wait, I thought you wanted to use nuclear power peacefully?

How the Coalition handles this guy will be telling. It's almost like he's daring them to attack Iran.

 

[Zardoz]

... or even yet "only one country has actually used WMD against another"

Read up on World War I.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

It is a lose/lose situation that america is in w/ Iran. If the US attacks, on whatever pretext, but a fabricated terrorist atrocity would do your historical mileage a treat, then nearly all of Eurasia and some of the Americas would most certainly give up on the USes contractual worthiness.
If there is no intervention, not even a 'covert' 'toppling', iran will proceed playing the petroeuro and islamcentral cards, effectively weakening US hegemony outside its continental mass.
This latter one is making the neocons od washington,dc hopping mad, therefore i say that the probability of some sort of military flexing is quite high in bushies 'untouchable' final term. not that it thrills me, its just the weight of things from a military perspective. iraq was on a fullahead go way before shock&awe and this was plain to anyone who knows their military history.
this is the 21st century though and military strategy should not be the engine of choice, all ime saying is it is an engine with obvious priorities so don't try & fool those with no love for propoganda, lies and downright evil. it works in ure mysterion millenia nut not in the aeons of earth/math

 

[kennythebomb]

You sure have an interesting style of writing, DeLoreanBrown.

Anyway, I think it's only a matter of time before the US or NATO invades Iran or at least does a very well coordinated airstrike. Just a hunch, no facts to back this up.

 

[FoolKiller]

Anyway, I think it's only a matter of time before the US or NATO invades Iran or at least does a very well coordinated airstrike. Just a hunch, no facts to back this up.

Well according to this article it appears that the US has more backing on this one.

 

[ledhed]

The last war that featured the use of wmds was the Iran and Iraq war .
Since then there have been other uses but they were against civilians .
Sarin gas attacks on the Subway in Japan was by a ...."cult "....Kurds being gassed and Shiites was just Saddam being Saddam . the only nation to be nuked was Japan in WW II by the US .

 

[Zardoz]

...Anyway, I think it's only a matter of time before the US or NATO invades Iran or at least does a very well coordinated airstrike. Just a hunch, no facts to back this up.

Unfortunately, there are facts that may back up your hunch:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2088045&postcount=1003

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

"The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate 'nuclear' weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

"The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans."

If it happens, NATO will have nothing to do with it. It will, once again, be "unilateral". The Iranians have figured out a brilliant strategy to stick it to us, big time. They're playing their oil card perfectly, leveraging the reality of how precious a commodity oil is about to become.

The nuke issue is a ploy. They're trying to sucker Bush and Cheney into making a titanic mistake. The benefits they would reap from a U.S. attack on them would be incalculable. We would cement our place in the world as the inheritors of the old Soviet Union's role as The Evil Empire. Our image to the rest of the world would never recover.

I have no idea how this is going to play out in the end, but the possibilities are chilling, to say the least.

 

[Touring Mars]

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Interesting article 👍 ... but doesn't it assume that the Iranian Oil Bourse is going to be a rip-roaring success? Right now, I can't see many people buying into an Iranian mechanism that would potentially de-stabilise the global economy, not to mention the US (and the UK) specifically... still, the implications could be very significant indeed... begs the question why it hasn't been done before, by someone more likely to succeed, i.e. a nation that hasn't currently been mired in universal condemnation for it's refusal to cooperate with the UN over it's nuclear weapons ambitions etc., and a regime that has fundamentalist Islam and anti-Zionism at it's core...

From a related article from that energy bulletin website:

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”

Renowed for his bloopers, sometimes GWB is scarier when he actually says what he means to say...