Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

GabrielSteel

Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards declared as terrorists....is this further proof he wants to go to war with Iran before he leaves office ....more info on

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

What do others think? A war with Iran too would be very scary, not to mention what it could do to the price of petrol!:(

Moriarty

According to certain people on this forum during the summer of 2006, the US was going to be at war with Iran before the end of 2006.

Still waiting.

FYI

Moriarty wrote:

According to certain people on this forum during the summer of 2006, the US was going to be at war with Iran before the end of 2006.

Still waiting.

THANK GOD (if you're religious anyway)

Take out the Unspeak and you'd have got the picture too:

"Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.” "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article626630.ece

Moriarty

Just to be clear, I'm not cheering on a war here, I'm just saying that you'll get a lot of a certain perspective in this forum which doesn't necessarily equate 100% with what happens in the real world.

Mick86

War between the US/Israel and Iran seems inevitable given Iran's obvious desire to become a nuclear power and the equally obvious desire of the other side to stop them. But manufacturing a casus belli out of the Revolutionary Guards is not a necessary prelude to war and I doubt that the US can stretch to a third front at the moment anyway.

Unless Bush just nukes Tehran and finishes the job in one strike.

jank

The US Army are mightly over streached at the moment.
They have until March 2008 to complete the "surge" as then they will start running out of replacements. No way in hell are they to introduce anything like conscription.

What may happen is a quick air force attack by the IDF and US against military installation in Iran.

Mick86

jank wrote:

What may happen is a quick air force attack by the IDF and US against military installation in Iran.

The Israelis successfully messed up Saddam's nuclear effort at Osirak but in general an air assault on it's own has never really been successful.

Dr_Teeth

Osirak was built by the French as a civilian installation iirc.. you can bet that the Iranian installations were built with the possibility of an Israeli/U.S. visit firmly in mind. That, coupled with access to the very latest in Russian air defence toys leads me to think that any single air raid would be futile.

Kevster

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

johnnyskeleton

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

They're not ignorant they're just used to following the leader, and it's not democracy they are spreading it is capitalism. But the American people have been told that democracy is the opposite to communism for so long that they mistake capitalism for democracy.

But remember the wise words in south park: every election is a choice between a douche and a giant turd.

eoin5

They expected Iraq to be a 3 day war and theyre still at it. A war with Iran would be a total disaster. Iraq were expected to breeze through a destabilized Iran in 1980 with their huge armoured ground forces and they got caught up in an 8yr brawl. The Iranians know a lot more about solidarity and defending their nation than Iraq did.

Mick86

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Osirak was built by the French as a civilian installation iirc..

Of course it was.

Dr_Teeth wrote:

you can bet that the Iranian installations were built with the possibility of an Israeli/U.S. visit firmly in mind.

Naturally.

Dr_Teeth wrote:

That, coupled with access to the very latest in Russian air defence toys leads me to think that any single air raid would be futile.

but in general an air assault on it's own has never really been successful.

You didn't read that bit did you.

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

He isn't your President so why do you care. And his successor won't be much different.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

They expected Iraq to be a 3 day war and theyre still at it.

The current war is a different war from the 2003 invasion. It's just being fought in the same location.

eoin5 wrote:

A war with Iran would be a total disaster. Iraq were expected to breeze through a destabilized Iran in 1980 with their huge armoured ground forces and they got caught up in an 8yr brawl. The Iranians know a lot more about solidarity and defending their nation than Iraq did

Iran won't be invaded as Iraq was in 2003. I think it will be attacked though, probably by air strikes, despite the fact that air strikes alone cannot defeat an enemy decisively.

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

He isn't your President so why do you care.

a) because people are dying because of his decisions
b) because he appears to be doing his damndest to drag us all into WW3
c) because he's - unfortunately - one of the most powerful men in the world (although this could be a complete front given that his capitalist backers seem to pull all the strings)
d) because most countries inexplicably seem to want to ape whatever America does, regardless of whether it's right/wrong, sensible/stupid, humane/evil
e) because oil prices are rising and air travel is inconvenient because of his actions
f) because he's not intelligent enough to realise that you can support America's rights and people and still disagree with some of the stupid decisions that he makes

NP14

You gotta look at the bigger picture here people

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370

irish_bob

johnnyskeleton wrote:

They're not ignorant they're just used to following the leader, and it's not democracy they are spreading it is capitalism. But the American people have been told that democracy is the opposite to communism for so long that they mistake capitalism for democracy.

But remember the wise words in south park: every election is a choice between a douche and a giant turd.

americans are ignorant , they are ignorant of world affairs , im not saying americans are stupid , there are no more stupid on average than most nations but for a moder western country, the usa,s population is phenomonally misinformed about issued outside thier border
this is is many ways due to thier media , in the usa news media is a business and in america waving the flag is always good for business which ties in with americans cheesey and shallow kind of patriotism
take fox news for example , it is impossible for the usa to ever act in a selfish or corrupt way with regards other nations in the view presented by thier journalists , any country or anyone one be it inside or outside america who criticises america is subjected to a with hunt and branded un american un patriotic or worse LIBERAL, the truth of how american foreign policy is conducted is covered up and all you get is demonising of opposing possitions to that of the bush administration
while fox news is the most extreme example of this kind of news media , the other news outlets still present a saintly potrait at all times of american foreign policy , the arabic channell AL JAZEERA for example is banned in the usa and i mean the english language one we get on sky which as anyone has seen is a perfectly credible news outlet , it just focuses more on mid east storys
while opinions more similar to say the bbc or chanell 4 news can be gotten in the usa , they are on tiny independant media outlets and are well hidden from your average american news watcher
in america , the only thing worse than supporting a bad president is not supporting what they call the commander in chief

Moriarty

irish_bob, you don't know what you're talking about. Al Jazerra banned in the US? What a load of arse, to put it politely.

Auron

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president?

Presidents are not elected. They are selected.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

The current war is a different war from the 2003 invasion. It's just being fought in the same location.

I see it as the same war thats evolved into something different. Its still the Coalition vs the Iraqis for the most part.

Mick86 wrote:

Iran won't be invaded as Iraq was in 2003. I think it will be attacked though, probably by air strikes, despite the fact that air strikes alone cannot defeat an enemy decisively.

This could be the case but it is a very dangerous game to play. It wouldnt be likely to bring about any regime change and given the history of interference the US have in Iran any attack could spark a big response from Iran and possibly other countries too.

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

a) because people are dying because of his decisions

They aren't your people.

Liam Byrne wrote:

b) because he appears to be doing his damndest to drag us all into WW3

He's had nearly 7 years and hasn't managed yet so he hardly will in the next 15 months.

Liam Byrne wrote:

c) because he's - unfortunately - one of the most powerful men in the world (although this could be a complete front given that his capitalist backers seem to pull all the strings)

Not really. He is potentially the most powerful man in the world but the system of checks and balances put in place to prevent a US President going loco and annihilating all his enemies in one go limit his power. In reality there are Colombian drug lords and Russian Mafiosi with more real power.

Liam Byrne wrote:

d) because most countries inexplicably seem to want to ape whatever America does, regardless of whether it's right/wrong, sensible/stupid, humane/evil)

Freedoms a bitch ain't it. Let's follow the Chinese model shall we?

Liam Byrne wrote:

e) because oil prices are rising and air travel is inconvenient because of his actions)

I'd blame profiteering oil companies and the 9/11 lunatics myself. The inconvenience of air travel is for YOUR security.

Liam Byrne wrote:

f) because he's not intelligent enough to realise that you can support America's rights and people and still disagree with some of the stupid decisions that he makes

So he's a dope. But he's a foreign dope. Worry about the clowns running our circus.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

It wouldnt be likely to bring about any regime change and given the history of interference the US have in Iran any attack could spark a big response from Iran and possibly other countries too.

You mean that countries that don't like the US, have attacked it in the past and are already fighting the US in Iraq anyway might be a little put out. How awful.:D

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

You mean that countries that don't like the US, have attacked it in the past and are already fighting the US in Iraq anyway might be a little put out. How awful.:D

I dont get what youre saying here. Are you saying that every country in the world doesnt like the US, has attacked it in the past and are fighting them in Iraq?

RedPlanet

I think he means that Iran has attacked the USA somehow.
Maybe, he believes they were in league with Arab sunni muslims that allegedly attacked america on Sept 11?
I don't know since he's not clear about what he says, and a lot of what he says seems very conspiratorial.....

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

I think he means that Iran has attacked the USA somehow.

The Iranian hostage crisis and the Hizballah suicide bombings in Lebanon in 1983 are just two events that spring to mind.

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe, he believes they were in league with Arab sunni muslims that allegedly attacked america on Sept 11?.....

Why does everyone seem to think that history began on Sept 11th 2001?

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't know since he's not clear about what he says, and a lot of what he says seems very conspiratorial.....

If you don't know why did you comment? But there's nothing conspiratorial about my post. The US has no real friends in the Islamic world so actually attacking Iran won't make the US situation any worse.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

I dont get what youre saying here. Are you saying that every country in the world doesnt like the US, has attacked it in the past and are fighting them in Iraq?

No. I'm stating the obvious fact that the US has no friends in the Islamic world. Attacking Iran won't make a whit of difference.

eoin5

If you were then you were being very vague.

What I was saying is that if the US attacks Iran there may be a response from both Iran and other countries. This includes both Islamic countries and others, especially those who have nuclear weapons or who have the capability to develop them (except for Israel of course).

The fact that they dont have any friends in the Islamic world would also add to the problem. They can no longer force regime change without invasion.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

If you were then you were being very vague.

Makes sense to me but maybe I'm just a little thick.

eoin5 wrote:

What I was saying is that if the US attacks Iran there may be a response from both Iran and other countries.

Undoubtedly.

eoin5 wrote:

This includes both Islamic countries and others, especially those who have nuclear weapons or who have the capability to develop them (except for Israel of course).

If you are talking nukes then only those countries with nuclear weapons matter. Nobody will have time to arm themselves with nukes and then respond. There are only 9 nuclear powers on earth- the US, UK, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea and France. At the moment none of these will go to war against the US for Iran. And certainly nobody will wave the nuclear stick at the US for the simple reason that it would invite annihilation on itself.

eoin5 wrote:

The fact that they dont have any friends in the Islamic world would also add to the problem.

Not really. Do you not see that the US does not have to worry about making enemies in the region because it has no friends there anyway.

eoin5 wrote:

They can no longer force regime change without invasion.

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

I see, so it's "joe pubic's" fault for not having the gumption to stick it huh?
Nevermind the bankrupt ideology of the neocons.

When did America ever cease backing their "anti-regime" movements?
Insofar as i can tell, it's been full steam ahead on that score for most a century.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

Makes sense to me but maybe I'm just a little thick.

The context was that if the US attacks Iran then there maybe a response from Iran or other countries. You then made a comment to the tune that I was only implying the Islamic nations which was stretching what I had said.

Mick86 wrote:

If you are talking nukes then only those countries with nuclear weapons matter. Nobody will have time to arm themselves with nukes and then respond. There are only 9 nuclear powers on earth- the US, UK, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea and France. At the moment none of these will go to war against the US for Iran. And certainly nobody will wave the nuclear stick at the US for the simple reason that it would invite annihilation on itself.

The reason that Iran may be attacked by the US (officially) is that they are not cooperating with the demands to halt enrichment. This would be a preemptive strike, just like Iraq was.

Suppose the attack goes ahead against the wishes of the world as a whole (probably including the US people). Of course none of the nuclear powers will declare war on the US but as I have said many of them may respond in some way, be it politically or in aid to Iran in some form. The reason the nuclear states may respond more strongly is that they have better ground to stand on economically and cannot be attacked preemptively.

The US has a long history of "one rule for us and another rule for them". The non-proliferation treaty is almost dead because of the US, so if they want to enforce it against the wishes of the world then the world may just respond by putting pressure on the US to hold their end of the bargain. That means they must make good faith efforts to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

What all this means is that the US themselves may come under the same pressure as they and others have put on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Mick86 wrote:

Not really. Do you not see that the US does not have to worry about making enemies in the region because it has no friends there anyway.

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

So which is it? They either have friends or they havent. Will they not find it impossible to carry out a regime change because they have no friends to finance?

Liam Byrne

Bush is gone beyond a joke at this stage......because it worked in his favour for so long that any mere mention of "9/11", "terrorist", "Al-Quaida" - however contrived - would allow him to do what he liked and would have the yanks giving up their civil liberties for fear of being called "unpatriotic", he wants to label everyone as he sees fit and as suits his agenda.

I'd consider Bush a terrorist and a dictator - something he's supposedly trying to rid Iraq of* (excuse #5, I think, for invading Iraq, when the other 4 turned out to be lies).

He labelled Saddam with WMDs and even associated him with Al-Quaida in the American people's minds, just so that he could gain support for carrying out his plans......why do people accept his PR and labels but dismiss others....when's the last time you heard an Iraqi opinion or correspondent on the radio ?

The sooner this dangerous prat is out on his ear the better.....roll on Hillary or Osama or Obama or whoever.....

The War Against Terrorism

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

The Iranian hostage crisis and the Hizballah suicide bombings in Lebanon in 1983 are just two events that spring to mind.

If those things constitute in your opinion, an attack on America then whatabout when protesters here burned down the British embassy in 1972? Did Ireland attack Britain then?
The USA has therefore attacked China: they destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Thank god China has a steady hand and didn't unlease nuclear destruction on us all.

The relationship between Iran and the US starts before 1979 Mick86.
For example the fact that the US and Britian conspired to overthrow the elected government there in Operation Ajax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax in a move for oil, sorta soured people's opinion of America and Britain.

Arming proxies or allies as it were, to assist them in their battles is nothing out of the ordinary. It's ok for the USA to do it eh? Bad when the Iranians do. :rolleyes: