And so it begins....

Memnoch

http://us.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

so how long before the US attack iran? what if anything will be Iran's response? I still don't believe that the Bush administration is retarded enough to launch an all out attack on iran as they did in iraq, but continuous airstrikes and bombings wouldn't surprise me one bit.

solas

had just finished reading that article before I logged on, think it speaks for itself. It's really a case of not if but when.
Lets see how the inauguration and Iraq elections go first...but I would think the latter end of the summer/autumn.

Where's that John Titor thread gone?

Hobbes

TBH I wouldn't put it past Bush and his crew to do this, but they simply do not have the resources and Iran has the ability to fight back. They also won't be greeted with open arms like they were in Iraq. :rolleyes:

They would have to reinstate the draft for starters as they are even pulling out troops from the Tsunami crisis as soon as possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4176889.stm

Manach

But if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, in breach of international conventions, would economic sanctions be strong enough and would countries in the world join in applying them?
Given the Israel had previous attacked Iraq's nuclear program - the US could allow them use of airspace to attack Iran, giving the US government a "Who -Us?" - deniablity.

Frank Grimes

If anywhere's going to be attacked soon looks like it could well be Syria:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050111-105709-6329r.htm

I was reading a few articles over the weekend (can't find the links now) but they seem to be based on a story that reckons the Americans are going to wait until after Bush's inauguration to start off at the Syrians, so it's wait and see I guess.
I really can't see what they think they'll achieve by destabilising more countries in that region though, perhaps as mentioned in the article above it's just scare tactics.

Raskolnikov

Frank Grimes wrote:

If anywhere's going to be attacked soon looks like it could well be Syria:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050111-105709-6329r.htm

I was reading a few articles over the weekend (can't find the links now) but they seem to be based on a story that reckons the Americans are going to wait until after Bush's inauguration to start off at the Syrians, so it's wait and see I guess.
I really can't see what they think they'll achieve by destabilising more countries in that region though, perhaps as mentioned in the article above it's just scare tactics.

Absolutely, they can use the pretext of a cross-border skirmish (a-lá Nazi Germany on Poland) to open up hostilities against the Syrians.

Frank Grimes

Raskolnikov wrote:

Absolutely, they can use the pretext of a cross-border skirmish (a-lá Nazi Germany on Poland) to open up hostilities against the Syrians.

According to article I lost the link for, they're saying that it'll actually be Iraq that'll declare itself "at war" with Syria (as you say under the pretext of cross border skirmishes), so the Americans will be actually fighting a proxy war a-lá Pakistan (in Afghanistan, Kashmir etc.) if what I've been reading proves to be true.

BolBill

Expect Bush to do very little over the next four years, hes gotten in for a second term (unlike Daddy) and hes gotten Saddam (for Daddy). His job is complete. American once again controls the OIL no go back to watching you TVs and we'll keep you down with threats from terrorists occasionally.

pork99

The spastic c*nt Rumsfeld could be courting disaster;

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind30.html

(this is from a conservative American website- I know he was predicting something which could happen in Oct 2004 but he might be proved right in 6 months to a years time Summer to Autumn this year maybe. I hope he's wrong)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

growler

It's not all that surprising that they are carrying on recon of potential Iranian and Syrian targets, but surveillance and recon don't necessarily act as a precursor to invasion or attack.

Iran is still part of the "Axis of Evil" but the USA can't conceivably start another conflict unless they clear up their Iraqi mess first. Given the internal opposition in Iran I'd imagine it would be eassierr for them to try and destabilise from the inside rather than have another gung-ho approach to further alienate the Muslim world and global public opinion. Syria is also a potential "minefiled" in case of invasion, there would be little political or military justification for invasion other than "we don't really like your system of government" can's see them attracting a coalition for such hostilities, bar the Israeli's who couldn't get involved in anything without risking a new Arab war in the Mid East.

Most of this is, IMHO, just propaganda to keep the pressure on the Iranians and Syrians to behave and stop there widely suspected tacit support of the Iraqi insurgent / terrorists.

Nuttzz

while they are bogged down in Iraq I cant see them attacking Iran, it would simply move the insurgency east, they need to "pacifiy" iraq first before they can attack Iran, to attack Iran with so many rebels running around in your rear (Iraq) would be a disaster but then again DR and co didnt allow the US military to fight the way they wanted to so who knows.

Sleepy

Anyone else ever wonder how all this will be viewed in the future? Will Bush be seen as the Hitler of our age or as an Alexander the Great type figure? Or will Iraq be seen as a 'mere' Falklands war?

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

to attack Iran with so many rebels running around in your rear (Iraq) would be a disaster but then again DR and co didnt allow the US military to fight the way they wanted to so who knows.

That's the ol' Vietnam excuse again.

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

That's the ol' Vietnam excuse again.

Well insofar as Franks (the commander at the time) wanted 250,000 troops for Iraq but the Don would only give him 150,000. My point being that the generals might ask for 250,000 to deal with Iran but get less because the Don and co might not want to commit that number of troops.

Incidently would the US economy take the stress of two massive military commitments that Iraq requires and Iran most certainly would, personally I dont think it would.

bonkey

pork99 wrote:

The spastic c*nt Rumsfeld could be courting disaster;

A modicum of civility wouldn't go astray.

If for no other reason than in acknowledgement of the fact that this is a public forum.

jc

mr_angry

It seems obvious to me that the American military is a bit over-stretched at the moment both in terms of resources, and public opinion. It would be very hard to justify another messy war in the Middle East without clear and agressive military provocation by the Iranians and Syrians first.

Isreal has repeatedly said it will not allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability and it is quite likely that any intelligence will be passed onto the Israelis instead. However, I don't think the Americans would be all that keen on Israel kick-starting a gulf-wide conflict with them in the middle policing Iraq. To be honest, from a purely strategic point of view, its not a bad time for the Iranians or the Syrians to pull some kind of stunt. Any military reaction would most likely send the Middle East up in flames, and unlike Iraq, the two countries don't have extremely unpopular dictators in the same vein as Saddam. Unless the entire International community went on the offensive against them, I'd imagine they could succeed with a strategic gain of some kind.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

spanner

Memnoch wrote:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

so how long before the US attack iran? what if anything will be Iran's response? I still don't believe that the Bush administration is retarded enough to launch an all out attack on iran as they did in iraq, but continuous airstrikes and bombings wouldn't surprise me one bit.

no dont worry they actually have nuclear weapons

Magnolia_Fan

Hobbes wrote:

They would have to reinstate the draft for starters as they are even pulling out troops from the Tsunami crisis as soon as possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4176889.stm

they have been told to get out by the Indonessian Goverment at least....they asked if they could use Indonessian waters for training ops while their ships were placed there and the goverment refused and then released a statement setting a dead line for all foreign millitary to leave...

Magnolia_Fan

Sleepy wrote:

Anyone else ever wonder how all this will be viewed in the future? Will Bush be seen as the Hitler of our age or as an Alexander the Great type figure? Or will Iraq be seen as a 'mere' Falklands war?

I think in the long term he will be viewed more as a great leader than a Hitler and is anyone suprised that this has come out?, the axis of evil as layed out by Bush was Iraq,Iran and North Korea. Could it be possible that he wasn't lying of his intentions for a full war on terror and not just on Sadam?..The wild card is North Korea, I could see America going into Iran but I don't think they would try North Korea at least not without backing and who's going to help them?

AmenToThat

growler wrote:

Given the internal opposition in Iran I'd imagine it would be eassierr for them to try and destabilise from the inside rather than have another gung-ho approach to further alienate the Muslim world and global public opinion.

This thinking is along the lines of 'they will throw flowers on the road to baghdad' and like Iraq its way off the mark.
OK in Iraq there were many, particularly in the Shia community who welcomed the Americans but this idea of a mass movement within Irans boarders that will fight with the Americans is just not true.

Yes there certainly many within Iran that are unhappy with the current thinking of the Regime there but there are also many who agree with it.
While many disagree this doesnt add upto a movememnt willing to take up arms against their Persian brothers.
Would you expect the Democrats to take up arms against the Republicans if Iran threatened to invade the US?

What Im wondering is will the Iranians now decide to interfere significantly in the upcomming elections in Iraq as a signal to the US to keep its distance..............

Hobbes

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

they have been told to get out by the Indonessian Goverment at least

You have a link for that? They are pulling out of all operations. I'd also keep an eye on the pledges the countries gave as some of them are already not paying up (or paying up in a way that it doesn't help at all).

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

You have a link for that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4178635.stm
They haven't been told to leave, there was some mentions in the news last week that there was a deadline set but it was either a quote taken out of context or someone in the government taking the decision themselves.

solas

updated
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/hersh.iran/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon Monday criticized an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that says the United States has been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer.

don't know what to make of this tho..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/arms.homosexual.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.

Hobbes

They have given out about his report but they haven't denied it either. Watching Bush on reply to it all he had was some inane grin on his face as he went on about Diplomacy.

They said the torture report wasn't true either.

Redleslie2

solas wrote:

don't know what to make of this tho..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/arms.homosexual.reut/index.html

Sounds like something that would backfire anyway. Haven't they heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes?

Magnolia_Fan

Hobbes wrote:

You have a link for that? They are pulling out of all operations. I'd also keep an eye on the pledges the countries gave as some of them are already not paying up (or paying up in a way that it doesn't help at all).

Nope I heard it on 2fm on Saturday night

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

Well insofar as Franks (the commander at the time) wanted 250,000 troops for Iraq but the Don would only give him 150,000. My point being that the generals might ask for 250,000 to deal with Iran but get less because the Don and co might not want to commit that number of troops.

Two hundred fifty thousane....500,000....doesn't matter things would still be about the same.
That they think that Iran is even an option now further shows their psychosis as well as their incompetence.
Also if Iran aren't developing nuclear weapons they will be soon.

Incidently would the US economy take the stress of two massive military commitments that Iraq requires and Iran most certainly would, personally I dont think it would.

I don't either and I'm wondering when the Vietnam style fragging is gonna start happening on a large scale.