Has Bush already launched the U.S. into war against Iran? - Page 2 - Ajarn Forum

Guy Mandude · 29th June 2008, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by cluezo

Oh, it's coming ...for sure. Sooner than later, I'm afraid.

The public relations war against Iran is heating up. As for whether the American people will support a war against a soverign nation that allegedly has weapons of mass destruction, Bush suckered the American people once on Iraq, and he'll do it again.

Farangrakthai · 30th June 2008, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Mandude

The public relations war against Iran is heating up. As for whether the American people will support a war against a soverign nation that allegedly has weapons of mass destruction, Bush suckered the American people once on Iraq, and he'll do it again.

Yep, last time Americans were suckered into it. This time, Israel will probably start it and then the U.S. will have an excuse to get involved and bomb Iran from Iraq. the plan all along, IMO.

preezeplessone · 30th June 2008, 00:38

Hopefully.

Farangrakthai · 30th June 2008, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by preezeplessone

Hopefully.

hopefully? an expanded middle east war that brings America down like Rome overextending itself? o.k. your anti-American right?

Guy Mandude · 30th June 2008, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

hopefully? an expanded middle east war that brings America down like Rome overextending itself? o.k. your anti-American right?

Just a wind up...calm down.

esoteric1 · 1st July 2008, 03:04

Iran In The Crosshairs: As Fears Of An Air Strike Increase, Little Opposition Is Heard

Xtrafresh · 1st July 2008, 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

hopefully? an expanded middle east war that brings America down like Rome overextending itself? o.k. your anti-American right?

How is it that attacking Iran would over extend america? I do not think that anyone is proposing sending troops into Iran for an invasion.

Farangrakthai · 1st July 2008, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Mandude

just a wind up...calm down.

I was half joking about the anti-american comment, forgot to put in the

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xtrafresh

How is it that attacking Iran would over extend America?

we'll see when history books are written decades in the future. America's economy is in a real bad way right now and if a good part of the trillions spent on "defense" and wars in Dubya's eight years in office had been spent on bringing America into the 21st century by heavily investing in education, re-training those who lost jobs in manufacturing, infrastructure and renewable energies, then America would be better prepared right now to do well in the global economy, IMO.

esoteric1 · 13th July 2008, 17:31

Quote:

In a series of consultations apparently aimed at coordinating policies against the Iranian nuclear threat, Defense Minister Ehud Barak will head to the US on Monday for talks at the Pentagon, days after Mossad chief Meir Dagan was in Washington for meetings with key intelligence officials. Sources say Israel is urgently trying to convince the US that Iran is closer to passing the nuclear threshold than Washington believes.

Barak to head to US for talks at the Pentagon | Jerusalem Post

Farangrakthai · 17th July 2008, 13:43

This is a positive sign:

Quote:

full story at: US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979 | World news | The Guardian

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.

The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.

There has been an intense debate within the Bush administration over Iran, with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, in favour of a military strike against Iranian nuclear plants and the state department in favour of diplomacy.

The state department has been pressing the White House for the last two years to re-establish diplomatic relations with Tehran by setting up an interest section.

Ahmadinejad told a reporter earlier this week, in response to a question about a possible US interests section: "We will receive favourably any action which will help to reinforce relations between the peoples." He added: "We have not received any official request but we think that the development of relations between the two peoples is something correct."

cluezo · 17th July 2008, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Mandude

The public relations war against Iran is heating up. As for whether the American people will support a war against a soverign nation that allegedly has weapons of mass destruction, Bush suckered the American people once on Iraq, and he'll do it again.

You got that right....

Farangrakthai · 21st July 2008, 14:44

an Israeli University Professor's view on Israel's intentions to bomb Iran.

Quote:

full article at: The New York Times

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months —

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow.

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort.

The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).

The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland.

some "anti-war" commentary on this op-ed and another link to this op-ed : A Brazen Evil- by Justin Raimondo