Bush Administration planning attack on Iran

from JoeUser Forums
Tommarow, many will be reading a story in the New Yorker reporting that the United States is creating plans to attack Iran. Details will be available to you tommarow, but for now we know that US forces have been conducting secret spy missions in Iran to garner intelligence for air strikes and short commando operations. I seriously hope that the United STates doesn't make the same mistake again. Its bad enough that GWBush believes he has a mandate to fight whoever he wants, but to do this would be just plain stupid.

Pentagon reports have concluded that an attack on Iran could be encouraged by Iranians. I don't think so. Isn't the pentagon the same organization that said US forces would be welcomed in Iraq. Seems to me they were wrong then, so I conclude they are probbably wrong this time too.

Don't do it Bush. Think before you act, I know its hard but try.
politics
19,942 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did you really think that the U.S. should just sit by and ignore the connections between the opposition in Iraq and Iran?? Lesson learned from Viet Nam: If weapons and reinforcements are coming over the border, don't act like they aren't already part of the war.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You realize, of course, that the US military actively makes plans to attack China, Canada, and probably even Vatican City. It is their job to be able to react at a moments notice to threats that come out of no where.

Given that, then, it is probably sensible that they are "making plans". What you don't seem to say is that there is reason to believe we are going to any time soon.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
And why not! ...... Iraq, Iran ..... easily pronounced names ... only four letters in the name as well ..... no complicated pronounciation or anything like that, ..... go for it george ..... you know it makes sense.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
actively makes plans to attack China, Canada, and probably even Vatican City


Actively making plans and having special forces in countries preparing target list are two different things. Anyway, why aren't these special forces in Iraq dealing with the insurgency?

Paul.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, why aren't these special forces in Iraq dealing with the insurgency?


As if there is only 1 Special Forces A Team!! lol

I guess since BA Baracus, Face and Hannibal are too busy on Nick At Nite re-runs, you figure that there just aren't any others? ;~D
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sandy, I'm sure that Israel is likely supporting the effort to invade Iran. After all, Israel would likely be the very first target of any Iranian nuclear strike. But, I'd like to think that Iran would be crazy to try.

On another note, I think that preemptively striking Iran would be a horrific mistake. I agree with you that dubya's lies and deception that led us into Iraq cannot be dismissed when he again cries "wolf". But, unlike the strike that Israel took against the Iraqi nuclear power plant in the '80's, and for which they were condemned soundly by the world stage, a US or Israeli strike against Iran would be disastrous. Unlike Iraq, Iran's nuclear capabilities are much more advanced, and are located throughout the country in various locations. In order to detain Iran's nuclear capabilities now would require decimating the country in a single series of strikes. It would be ugly. And, to be sure, the world would not sit by and merely condemn us. Likely, they will build a coalition against us, and strike in kind as best they can. That would also be ugly. The fallout from a preemtive strike would be shattering. Our preemption into Iraq is merely a small taste of what would come.

What I'd like to know is are there any solid plans that Iran would attack us or Israel? Would we actually believe the dubya administration if they told us so? There is no question, our fight against terror (which, in and of itself, is no enemy) has only made the world a more dangerous place. I suppose the Bush neocon death cult is happy now.

It sure would have been a whol lot cheaper if we just bought the oil from Iraq instead of trying to steal it.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
On another note, I think that preemptively striking Iran would be a horrific mistake.


What manner of thinking does it take to see fighters and weapons coming over the border into Iraq to fight with the opposition, and consider the US fighting back as a "preemptive strike".

If you ask me, all it would be is the U.S. (once again) joining in the fight, already in progress.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Great headline!  Now, when it does not come to pass, will that make a headline?

Methinks not.  And I do agree with bakerstreet.  To ignore a hostile is to fall prey to it.  However, I think the lesson of Iraq is being learned, and that is worth more than any blustering (ala Clinton) that can be done.  IN the end, you only have to punch out one bully (Arthur Fonzerelli) for the others to back off.

So, are you going to print a retraction when it does not occur?

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: Dr. Guy - 1/17/2005 11:09:30 AM
Great headline! Now, when it does not come to pass, will that make a headline?
Methinks not. And I do agree with bakerstreet. To ignore a hostile is to fall prey to it. However, I think the lesson of Iraq is being learned, and that is worth more than any blustering (ala Clinton) that can be done. IN the end, you only have to punch out one bully (Arthur Fonzerelli) for the others to back off.
So, are you going to print a retraction when it does not occur?


Are you kidding? Of course they won't!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you kidding? Of course they won't!


Yea, but the question was merely rhetorical.  I am old enough to know that Dan Rather never will, and neither will his minions!


But then I saved this.  Watch for it in another 4 years! hehehehe! You cant retract a written word!

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you kidding? Of course they won't!



Yea, but the question was merely rhetorical. I am old enough to know that Dan Rather never will, and neither will his minions!


No, I won't print a retraction because I am right. The bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. You can believe what you want, but just like we now know that the Bush administration had its eyes set on Iraq from the begining, they now have their eyes on Iran.

Oh, and Dan Rather was right too. He may have had a bad source, but the fact that bush skipped duty is true.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
We'd BETTER be getting ready to attack Iran! We're already 6 months behind on attacking Syria!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: sandy2 - 1/17/2005 3:40:19 PM
Are you kidding? Of course they won't!



Yea, but the question was merely rhetorical. I am old enough to know that Dan Rather never will, and neither will his minions!


No, I won't print a retraction because I am right. The bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. You can believe what you want,[/quote]

As can you

Oh, and Dan Rather was right too. He may have had a bad source, but the fact that bush skipped duty is true.


BTW Rather was wrong. There never was any concrete evidence brought forth to prove that Bush skipped out.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush didn't skip duty, he was just high on cocaine the whole time. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #14 By: Myrrander - 1/17/2005 3:55:33 PM
Bush didn't skip duty, he was just high on cocaine the whole time. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha


Hah. Hah. That is to laugh. Very funny. But again no proof of that.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, if people have been coming over the border from Iran, either to deliever weapons and supplies, or directly fight against the coalition and freedom for Iraqis, they are the ones who engaged us. How can any recon against Iran (or even an attack if our recon confirms Iranian involvement) be considered either a "pre-emptive" strike, or anything other than fighting an enemy that is already fighting us?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we should go to war against Canada. There is a constant stream of non-citizens coming over the damned border every day.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we should go to war against Canada. There is a constant stream of non-citizens coming over the damned border every day.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
In Iraq, we are committed to working with our international partners to keep Saddam Hussein boxed in, and we will work to see him out of power. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have stood up to Saddam Hussein time and time again. As President, Al Gore will not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary.


Just curious could that be seen as a Democratic plan to invade Iraq, I mean in it says "not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq" and occurding to several leading Democratics pre-election period it was neccessary there (not to mention whats the point of putting that in unless you think you might be going to war.) And working to see him out of power just seems like a declaration of war (seeing as how I think we've figured out by now that trade boycotts rarely work (look at Cuba for a good example of that one.) Maybe Im just reading to much into this (now theres something u will NEVER hear a democrat say.)
Oh fyi that quotes from the Democrat 2000 party platform. Qing
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, I won't print a retraction because I am right. The bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. You can believe what you want, but just like we now know that the Bush administration had its eyes set on Iraq from the begining, they now have their eyes on Iran.

Oh, and Dan Rather was right too. He may have had a bad source, but the fact that bush skipped duty is true.


Excuse me son?  You say you wont even it you are proven wrong?  We are not asking for a retraction today, or tomorrow.  But Bus is here for only 4 more years.  Aftrer that you say you will not? Why?  because you cant admit you are wrong?


And you are already wrong!  Check the 180.  check the facts!  But if you wont admit you are wrong in 4 years, you are not going to admit you are wrong now.  And you have not been right yet!  Have you read the Constitution yet?

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just curious could that be seen as a Democratic plan to invade Iraq, I mean in it says "not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq" and occurding to several leading Democratics pre-election period it was neccessary there (not to mention whats the point of putting that in unless you think you might be going to war.) And working to see him out of power just seems like a declaration of war (seeing as how I think we've figured out by now that trade boycotts rarely work (look at Cuba for a good example of that one.) Maybe Im just reading to much into this (now theres something u will NEVER hear a democrat say.)
Oh fyi that quotes from the Democrat 2000 party platform. Qing


QingJoa, Dont argue facts with zealots.  It just gets them mad and onery.


Insightgful, and true!

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we should go to war against Canada. There is a constant stream of non-citizens coming over the damned border every day.


Thanks for the overblown rhetoric, Canada is not sending people here for the purpose of arming, supplying or taking an active part in killing us or hoping to prevent our elections.

But thanks for the laugh!! You do entertain! ;~D
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Oh you mean she was joking I was hoping she was serious it would be fun to take over Canada.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #24 By: QingJao - 1/17/2005 4:58:06 PM
Oh you mean she was joking I was hoping she was serious it would be fun to take over Canada.


I remember a few Field Training Exercises (back in the cold war days) when the purpose of the exercise was based on operations into, and occupying Canada. Some were even joint US/Canadian exercises! And, for the most part, they were, in fact, fun! ;~D