Who is going to stand up to the US this time when it decides to invade Iran ?

Mick86

bonkey wrote:

Who is goin gto stop the US? The US will, for a start. They're not stupid enough to get into a shooting match with Iran, so they'll stop themselves from doing so..

No. The US will obviously decide NOT to invade Iran. Since they won't start the invasion then logically there is nothing to stop.

bonkey wrote:

If you want to take a different perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan will stop the US...because (as you say) the US is too tied down there.

The fact that the US is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan will influence their not starting an invasion. Hence nothing to stop.

DublinDes

clown bag wrote:

People seem to be of the opinion that logically and logistically the US would not launch an attack or invasion but the extremists in the white house have shown a disregard for both so I wouldn't rule it out. Another interesting consequence to an attack on Iran is that Venezuela will turn off the tap and refuse to supply any more oil to the US.

Yeah, even America has a limit to it's military logistics. Interesting that " Venezuela will turn off the tap and refuse to supply any more oil to the US". If the Americans/Isreali's attack Iran, will Syria stand by ? God knows what domino effect the whole thing could start.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I doubt anything of the sort is planned at the moment.
For one a democratic controlled congress wouldnt allow it and for two,theres likely to be a regime change in the whitehouse in the fall of 2008 anyway.

The American president has the power to launch attacks without congressional approval.

And if there is any resistance, there are many ways to achieve minimum causus beli.

The most likely event will be an attack by Israel which will be followed by a retaliation from Iran which will allow America to step in in defence of Israel.

Mick86

clown bag wrote:

People seem to be of the opinion that logically and logistically the US would not launch an attack or invasion but the extremists in the white house have shown a disregard for both so I wouldn't rule it out. .

Whatever the "White House Extremists" might want the numbers don't add up. An invasion of Iran at the moment is mathematically impossible.

purple'n'gold

DublinDes wrote:

Yeah, even America has a limit to it's military logistics. Interesting that " Venezuela will turn off the tap and refuse to supply any more oil to the US". If the Americans/Isreali's attack Iran, will Syria stand by ? God knows what domino effect the whole thing could start.

Yes, you are right. If the Americans start a major war by attacking / invading Iran the entire Middle East / central Asia will be completely destabilised. (Israel will do nothing without American approval. They are just a puppet of the USA). The oil supplies to the west will be cut off, and Pakistan, a nuclear power where Musharraf is just about hanging on by his fingertips may fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. No, the risk is too great, even for the mad cavemen in washington.

Mick86

purplengold wrote:

Yes, you are right. If the Americans start a major war by attacking / invading Iran the entire Middle East / central Asia will be completely destabilised. (Israel will do nothing without American approval. They are just a puppet of the USA). The oil supplies to the west will be cut off, and Pakistan, a nuclear power where Musharraf is just about hanging on by his fingertips may fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. No, the risk is too great, even for the mad cavemen in washington.

Isn't that the same Doomsday Scenario thatw as predicted before the invasion of Iraq?

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

1. Scuttlebutt from various military blogs suggests that US assets are in the gulf readying up for an attack. Or at least going through the drills.

Not exactly news. The US has been going through 'Attack Iran' drills on and off since 1979.

2. Last week (iirc) a bill was passed in the Senate that basically allows Bush to attack Iran.

Bush doesn't need a bill to attack anyone. There is ample precedent.

3. As someone pointed out, they don't plan to invade, just bomb the heck out of it.

True enough, though I think an airborne raid to get boots on the ground and obtain evidence is quite in the cards.

5. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. They are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Isn't that the matter of contention?

NTM

purple'n'gold

Mick86 wrote:

Isn't that the same Doomsday Scenario thatw as predicted before the invasion of Iraq?

No, not quiet. Iran is a different kettle of fish. Iraq was sterilized military speaking by the first gulf war. And the islamic world has now seen what the Usa means by regime change and democracy, i.e., hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed, maimed and tortured.

stevedublin

Mick86 wrote:

Isn't that the same Doomsday Scenario thatw as predicted before the invasion of Iraq?

Probably, but thats not to say it wont happen this time.

Instant Karma

Someone else mentioned it earlier and its true, the US military is stretched beyond belief, they are arguably losing two wars (they certainly arent winning anyway) at the moment and the whole military is suffering from fatigue.

I find the whole situation sadly ironic, the US invaded Iraq and more or less won Iraq for the Iranians, now they see this is the case the sabre rattling begins, and what fool would even consider starting a third front with the way things are going in Iraq and Afganistan?

as Vizzini says, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia.'

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

Whatever the "White House Extremists" might want the numbers don't add up. An invasion of Iran at the moment is mathematically impossible.

But an attack isn't. They have plenty of bombers, cruise missiles and fighter planes in reserve

Akrasia

Instant Karma wrote:

and what fool would even consider starting a third front with the way things are going in Iraq and Afganistan?

as Vizzini says, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia.'

Take your pick

Hellm0

Mr.Micro wrote:

Who is going to stop the US ?

No one hopefully. Countries governed by fairytale nonsense shouldnt have access to nuclear weaponry. I dont suport the US's motives for doing it but I'll feel a hell of alot safer when they do.

Instant Karma

Hellm0 wrote:

No one hopefully. Countries governed by fairytale nonsense shouldnt have access to nuclear weaponry. I dont suport the US's motives for doing it but I'll feel a hell of alot safer when they do.

Strange thing to say, the US is the only country ever to agressively use nuclear weapons and my greatest fear is not that Iran will get and use one but that the US will drop another.

purple'n'gold

Instant Karma wrote:

Strange thing to say, the US is the only country ever to agressively use nuclear weapons and my greatest fear is not that Iran will get and use one but that the US will drop another.

Mc Arthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against china during the Korean War. Just imagine what sort of world we would inhabit now if Bush was president at the time and not Truman? (And yes I am aware that Truman dropped the bombs on Japan, but different scenario between Korean War and ending WW2 with a weapon that had never been used in anger before)

Hellm0

Instant Karma wrote:

Strange thing to say, the US is the only country ever to agressively use nuclear weapons and my greatest fear is not that Iran will get and use one but that the US will drop another.

Better the devil you know they say. Besides the US brand of fairy tale nonsense doesnt include stoneing people to death(at least not nowadays).

I dont beleive anyone should have access to the bomb(with the possible exception of me) but then I deal in realities, if anyones going to have it I'd prefer it be a western country.
Mutual annhililation only deters those that fear death and dont fully beleive in heaven. Iran strikes me as a country that could possibly have enough zealots/fairy folk to acually WELCOME an apocalypse.

Dirk Gently

Mick86 wrote:

Whatever the "White House Extremists" might want the numbers don't add up. An invasion of Iran at the moment is mathematically impossible.

Nicolas Sarkozy. Ehud Olmert.


.........although I do have more faith in the people of France than the people of the US / Israel to nip that particular bud.

Logically it doesn't make sense but what I'm saying is the neo cons have shown that they are ideologically driven as opposed to making rational decisions. Trying to debunk an attack based on logic doesn't fly with these lads. Based on prior behaviour anything can happen regardless of the obvious short comings in any plan. Regardless of your politics everyone must see that America is a desperate nation right now, in debt and running out of energy supplies and they are both capable and politically willing to **** up again, and again...and again......and again

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Mutual annhililation only deters those that fear death and dont fully beleive in heaven. Iran strikes me as a country that could possibly have enough zealots/fairy folk to acually WELCOME an apocalypse.
__________________

as opposed to the united states?

http://www.raptureready.com/

dave2pvd

Mordeth wrote:

as opposed to the united states?

http://www.raptureready.com/

The 'Rapture' site you posted represents the people or the governance of the United States??

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i assumed he was referring to the people of iran, not just their government

but the gov of the us is staffed with a lot of god-first people too, many of them just as scary as their arab counterparts. it's just lucky for people in the us that american religious nutjobs have a whole lot of secularism to dismantle before they can start attacking their citizenry in the same manner that religious nutjobs in the rest ofthe world have been doing.

Mick86

stevedublin wrote:

Probably, but thats not to say it wont happen this time.

Well I suppose if they keep saying it then someday they may be right.

Akrasia wrote:

But an attack isn't. They have plenty of bombers, cruise missiles and fighter planes in reserve

The thread title specifies an invasion. The US could well launch an airstrike but airstrikes alone are highly unlikely to be 100% effective. Take for example Lebanon last year or Kosovo in 1999.

clown bag wrote:

Nicolas Sarkozy. Ehud Olmert.

I don't see France wading in on an invasion of Iran. Even if they did their contribution would be relatively small. The US would have to make up the bulk of the invasion force and short of reintroducing the draft in election year the troops just aren't available.

As for Israel. If she attacks Iran then it can only be a solo run as America's proxy. The US couldn't overtly attack a Muslim country with Israel because it would cause mayhem in those Muslim states that are trying to keep out of the conflict-like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It would also not do Musharraf any favours.


.

clown bag wrote:

Trying to debunk an attack based on logic doesn't fly with these lads.

It's nothing to do with ideology or logic, it's simple logistics. At present the US cannot successfully engage in a land campaign in Iran.

Mr.Micro

.

It's nothing to do with ideology or logic, it's simple logistics. At present the US cannot successfully engage in a land campaign in Iran.[/QUOTE]

Then why all the rhetoric from the US ?.Dont threaten what you cant back up!
I am sure the Iranians are aware of this as well .The world is becoming much more complicated in that many nations have sophisticated weapons and conventional wars are a thing of the past .Attacking the likes of Iraq and parts of the Balkans where the armed forces were primitive and behind technologically with regards to weapons and no risk of nuclear retaliation. Iran could prove to be a different scenario with the possibility of escalation into the rest of the Middle East.

Despite all the logistical improbability of an invasion put forward most eloquently by all the contributors I feel that GW could not ride off into the Texas sunset with that pesky Iran laughing at him , as one person posted GW already has the mandate ( not sure of that myself) which I presume is an extension of his current emergency power to attack Iran .

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Not exactly news. The US has been going through 'Attack Iran' drills on and off since 1979.

As I understand it, it is not your usual 'attack iran' drills. The military people are pretty much aware of this. You have also a lot of hardware moving into the Gulf near Iran for the last year.

Bush doesn't need a bill to attack anyone. There is ample precedent.

He needs approval by congress before he can go to war. He can't just attack any country he feels like. In fact he only attacked Iraq by using a loophole of using the previous approval to attack Iraq in the first gulf war.

I think an airborne raid to get boots on the ground and obtain evidence is quite in the cards.

I don't think the US is in a position to get boots on the ground. It isn't Iraq, you will be fought by everyone there as the US are purely the aggressor.

The targets will not be Nuclear plants in the bombing raids, unless Bush goes against his agreement he signed with Iran in order to elicit help in Iraq.

If he does hit the nuclear plants the mess is going to be worse. Mentioned it before but you can see the plants using google maps. They aren't hidden at all. They are normal power stations and most are just outside major cities. Hitting them is liable to spread radioactive fallout across those cities.

Isn't that the matter of contention?

The current details out there would suggest that Iran is either not actively looking for a nuclear weapon, or if they are they would be around 6-10 years away from making one. You also have a country that hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors in a long time, yet has been attacked by the USA (coup) and Iraq (again paid for by the USA).

The USA simply has no credibility anymore.

Even so I would put Pakistan as a more dangerous country with Nuclear weapons. It is not a stable country, It has Taleban sympathizers and OBL is alleged to be in that country. Bush Administration knew Pakistan was building nuclear weapons (since 2006) and did nothing about it. Instead he gave India nuclear ability.

I also see in recent news that Norman Podhoretz claims that Bush will attack Iran (godfather of neocons). This was after a private meeting with Bush. C-Span story here.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/01/podhoretz-bush-iran-attack/

Hobbes

Hellm0 wrote:

Better the devil you know they say. Besides the US brand of fairy tale nonsense doesnt include stoneing people to death(at least not nowadays).

Yea its not like they kidnap people and send them to secret prisons to be tortured, or break laws in government when it comes to voting or funding their friends with tax money.

The USA has long since stopped being a moral compass.

Also saying "Well at least they are not as bad as ...." is a stupid way to think.

dave2pvd wrote:

The 'Rapture' site you posted represents the people or the governance of the United States??

Actually there is a very small percentage of US citizens that believe that it can only be saved by the Rapture and feel that escalating the world to the rapture is the best way to go. Thankfully none of these fruitcakes are in any position of power.

Fanatical christians now is a different story.

Hellm0

Hobbes wrote:

Also saying "Well at least they are not as bad as ...." is a stupid way to think.

I'd prefer it if you didnt resort to name calling, it doesnt do anything to disuade me from my way of thinking and infact you come off as childish by having to resort to that.

As I said, I deal in realities. Would prefer that Iran had nuclear capabilies and not the US?

By no means is the US perfect but their not AS insane. The world is made up of shades of grey, there are no perfect countries and if given a choice I know which I'd prefer had the power to end life on earth(none, but thats not an option).

EDIT. This is not a debate about the US's morality. I hold no value in the "morality" of any state or organisation. I infact do not beleive in a shared morality in anyway other than that it may serve to keep society stable(no murdering, rape nor pillaging etc). Anything further is dogma and may have no other purpose than to be used by tyrants, dictators and generally folk who want to have power over you(any organised religion).

djpbarry

micmclo wrote:

It is a nuclear threat and a regime change is needed.

Right, because history has shown us that US military intervention has always resulted in the formation of stable democratic institutions :rolleyes: .

is that so wrote:

India will not want an extremely large Islamic state on the border with Pakistan mustering forces for war.

I think a US/Israeli attack on Iran would put Pakistan in a very difficult position. It could possibly lead to major conflicts in Balochistan.

purple’n&#8217 wrote: »

The oil supplies to the west will be cut off, and Pakistan, a nuclear power where Musharraf is just about hanging on by his fingertips may fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

I’m not sure about that, given the influence of the military in Pakistan.

Hellmo wrote:

Countries governed by fairytale nonsense shouldnt have access to nuclear weaponry

I believe the US falls into that category.

Hellmo wrote:

Mutual annhililation only deters those that fear death and dont fully beleive in heaven. Iran strikes me as a country that could possibly have enough zealots/fairy folk to acually WELCOME an apocalypse.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t believe in heaven. I play with home-made explosives every day. Wouldn’t nuclear war be just dandy?!?

Hellmo wrote:

By no means is the US perfect but their not AS insane

I did not realise their was an International Insanity Index.

Let’s also not forget that the current regime in Iran has come about due to US interference.

Hellm0

djpbarry wrote:

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t believe in heaven. I play with home-made explosives every day. Wouldn’t nuclear war be just dandy?!?

What? I dont think you read that paragraph correctly, my point was to say that people who dont want to die fear death. People who beleive in such nonsense concepts as martyrdom dont. I dont get exactly what you were saying in reply there 0_o

djpbarry wrote:

I did not realise their was an International Insanity Index.

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

djpbarry wrote:

Let’s also not forget that the current regime in Iran has come about due to US interference.

Lets say someone takes a sh*t on your floor. If they want to clean it up themselves why would you stop them?

Instant Karma

Hellm0 wrote:

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

now I know your having a laugh. the US is as morally bankrupt as they come. How many countries have they interfered with, central/south america ring any bells? What about the Shah in Iran, I think it's about time you opened a history book and absorbed some credible information rather than label those with a counter argument 'childish'.

djpbarry

Hellm0 wrote:

What? I dont think you read that paragraph correctly, my point was to say that people who dont want to die fear death. People who beleive in such nonsense concepts as martyrdom dont. I dont get exactly what you were saying in reply there

Apologies, I mis-interpreted your statement. Allow me to re-phrase:

I totally believe in heaven. Nuclear war could mean I'll get there quicker. Wouldn't that be just dandy ?!?

Hellm0 wrote:

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

Honestly, no. No I do not .

Hellm0 wrote:

Lets say someone takes a sh*t on your floor. If they want to clean it up themselves why would you stop them?

I fully agree with Instant Karma here - you are in dire need of a history lesson man.

Hellm0

Instant Karma wrote:

now I know your having a laugh. the US is as morally bankrupt as they come. How many countries have they interfered with, central/south america ring any bells? What about the Shah in Iran, I think it's about time you opened a history book and absorbed some credible information rather than label those with a counter argument 'childish'.

Need I repeat myself? I have not once stated America is "morally" superior to Iran. Morality does not come into this picture as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I am well aware of the US involvement in south American politics and their meddleing with the democratic process. I am aware of the sordid side of America's foreign policy and their past(and current) wrongdoing.

What I AM aware of is the religious/dogmatic views of Iran's present regime. I am not saying America is a secular beacon of virtue, but rather that it is the lesser of two evils IN MY EYE'S due to its domestic policy in comparison to that of a muslim nation.

If a nation's domestic policy is one of enforced ignorance and religious literalism then their foreign policy cannot be trustworthy. This is a crime the US is partially guilty for, though not to the degree that Iran is/has been.

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced. If the US are willing to throw the bodies into the meat grinder to do this, so be it(though at present I agree with previous posters, this is a logistical impossibility). I say this as I fully beleive any nation who lets religious dogma and archaic moral's based upon the musings of a man who married a 6 year old girl guide their policies should be toppled.


PS. If your going to sudjest I'm ignorant dont mention continents and expect me to fill in the gaps just because you phrase your insults as questions. That just makes YOU look ignorant. Especially when you misrepresent a previous reply of mine to another poster as labeling people childish. That poster did not pose a counter arguement in the first place but rather resorted to dubbing my arguements as "stupid". Read the post if your going to quote me.