While there is still much to debate about Iraq, and the "Who's responsible?" question, it looks like the War Pigs are moving onward again.

Several sources point to Iran as the next target, and accusations have flown that US "commandos" have been on the ground inside Iran, and planes have done surveliance. Here are a few articles:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050119/1/3pydi.html

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1327695/posts

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0614

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/993510.cms

On the flip side, Condi Rice gave us assurances that attacking Iran is not on the agenda. The echo stations covered that widely.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146361,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=471348

Here's a look at things in depth:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

What Al-Jezeera said:
http://english.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_...service_id=6628

Russia involved in supporting Iraq? http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1790.cfm

Some fanatics are already calling this WWIII.
http://www.revlu.com/war2.html

I have no idea what's really going on here, but I think it's important for us to discuss it.

Here Are my Questions for Debate:

1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?

3.) Would this constitute WWIII?

No..the military is not prepared to attack Iran other than by bombing from aircraft. We do not have the manpower to invade another nation and also i do not think it is necessary.

Iran WILL BE a democracy in the foreseeable future. It is just when and by what means...and i do not think it will be by force unless one thing happens...Iran attacks Israel. Iran has claimed that they want to continue their nuclear porgram in hopes of having an energy source. This is ridiculous to believe for two reasons:

1) They already have a great energy source with oil
2) When they felt threatened by the US recently, they said an attack would only make them speed up their nuclear program.

Answer me...why would they want to speed up their nuclear program for energy if they felt threatened? Its because they want to make bombs!

The youth of Iran will rise up. They will see the budding democracy in Iraq and the slow yet progressing democracy in Saudi Arabia and will demand their rights. The mullahs will not maintain control. And as Bush said in his SOTU speech..."We stand with them."

We are fighting WW3...the war on terror and tyranny. This is a global war that most world nations must fight in order to survive.

For the sake of American soldiers and reservists, I hope not. I don't believe the US can extend its budget and lines of front without having the public opinion react strongly against it.

I'm not a tactician, but I know it's dangerous to extend the line of fire. You increase the number of your enemies, you put convoys of supplies at further risk. Finally, you're less capable to maintain peace in territories under your control.

Now, let's see the facts through a rapid comparison between Iraq and Iran.

Iraq :

Population : 24 683 313 inhabitants
Surface : 438 317 km²

Iran :

Population : 68 278 826 inhabitants (2.7 times more than Iraq)
Surface : 1 648 000 km² (3.75 times bigger than Iraq)

Any plan of invasion would require a lot more soldiers, weapons, supplies... and allies than any forces jointed in the Colation of the Willing. IMO, this is currently impossible.



I can't speak for all European states, but I believe the EU will determine a common position this time. According to the current scheme of events, it's likely that any decision will be made after throrough preliminary negociations with the Iranians.



No. But it would definitely be enough of a bad WAR already.

Hard to split this mess up but I would like to contribute some interesting information.

I watched a talking head on CSPAN speaking on this very issue this morning and his analysis was that the only way America could neutralize the nuclear ambition was with the EU in cooperation with open joint diplomacy. Currently we have no open channels with Iran so we need to get rolling since this guy says within a year the main ingredients will be ready for a true threat. Today the Sec. Of State Rice was planting seeds in France so keep your fingers crossed.

The option is as mentioned by OLS a popular uprising would be favorable option but I fear the mullahs already have countermeasures in place to prevent such a happening. Iran has a very large majority of youth that is pro western and would love to see the mullahs overthrown.

Short of internal Iranian conflict to slow the program Israel will strike and end the Mid East possibility of peace because most of the locations of nukes are in populated areas. Iranians are also nationalist and would reject outside intervention if attacked.

An event near boiling point not mentioned on AD so far is Venezuela where civil war may soon break out. This conflict could overshadow Iran in its consequence to our economy related to oil. Venezuela will require weapons and resources more than soldiers and I think an internal coop is more likely there than Iran. My wife went to Defense Language School with a female officer from Venezuela a few years back and she used to keep us up to date as she is now a Colonel in Chavez’s army. I have been seeing large numbers of Cobra gun ships passing through an inconspicuous aircraft hangar across from my son’s school and I don’t think their destination is Haiti.

As I find more time I will research what Jimmy Carter’s seeds have grown to in Venezuela with the help of Castro and try to get information from my wives friend.

If Iran gets hot at the same time Venezuela we could have real economy problems stemming from oil supply. This sounds like Murphy’s Law and it doesn’t feel good.

Don't think these issues weren't considered in deciding to act against Iraq. Iran nor only represents a clear threat, but also, as you state, has a large segment of the population longing for more freedom. The government had already shown signs of 'giving in' to this sentiment, and there is much more political freedom there now than there was. Watching a burgeoning democracy grow in Iraq could only help foster that sentiment...and could indeed be the factor that helps resolve the situation in Iran.

It appears we are trying to foment internal revolution in Iran, rather than invasion. Its an ambitious plan and a shaky one considering Iraq, and even Afghanistan are not totally stable. At this time, a civil war in Iran -in my mind is not desireable, but the neo-cons seem to think we should keep the ball rolling.

I am always wary when we begin to receive heavy propaganda against a country or government on the slow trickle like we are now. Its not as if the Iranian government doesnt get our news, so these covert ops and subtle projections of our intentions are no secret, I see it as preparing the population for another inevitable. What we are doing and saying publicly now constitutes a real threat to them, and following logic that means we are going down that road of being a real threat. I think we might even be relying on Israel to do the dirty work initially since we are maxed out at present.

I think the Admin will make whatever moves it can towards breaking down Iran in this second term, and convincing us that something MUST be done about them, perhaps to lead us to believe in another war down the line.

They are a ballsy bunch with a big vision, this neo-crew, who knows whats really in the works for the long term, but one thing is- if you are hearing Iran in the news, it means they are going after Iran next. But we knew that, didnt we?

Its interesting to me that some americans are so gung-ho for bringing democracy to Iran as well, since here with the new budget we are facing cuts in education, community services, parks, environmental controls, health care and medicaid, as well as social security benefits for our people. We are a generous nation, to sacrifice our own well being in order to bring democracy to the Middle East, for no other reason than the goodness of our hearts.

When a nation starts a nuclear program, people immediately cries out WMD and BOMB but no one does so when US continues to build its weapons arsenal.

No nation or leader in the world is stupid enough to start an arms race with the US. The US military is without doubt the most technologically advanced military on earth and one of the countries that own the most amount of WMD. No country on earth can stand up against the US in an open warfare. Thus anticipating that Iran is building nukes is just folly.

Don't forget, the only nation in history that has launched a nuclear attack on civilians is none other than US.

Old Sarge!

Speaking as a venezuelan, I really hope you are wrong. Taking into account everything what we have gone through, I consider our democratic beliefs (the citizens' ) to be very strong and I see no point in having a civil war when the elections are next year. We have been a peaceful and democratic country even while other latin-american countries were controlled by dictators and military types...and I expect us to keep that road in the future.

Chavez has been intelligent enough to keep Venezuela a reliable source of oil for the USA despite his anti-american rethoric (only in words but not in actions) and I don't believe that the situation will change during his last year before the elections since he hopes to be re-elected (a nightmare) and needs to keep the USA quiet.

So in short, I think the probability to be very small for Venezuela and Iran to get "hot" at the same time.

I think the Bush's administration is also intelligent enough to know that declaring war on Iran is not viable, given the current state of affairs (Iraq and others). The question I make myself: What would the Bush's administration win if war on Iran is declared?......Maybe I'm naive....but I see no clear-and-safe pros (only risky, adventurous and low-probability ones)




Not saying that they don't want to make bombs......but If the world changes its energy source sometime in the future, Iran has every right to develop other kinds of energy to prepare for eventual economical independency. Don't you think so?

1. No. Iraq was the military option. The other nations will be dealt with in other ways.

2. I'm not sure I understand this question. The other nations will do what they always do, act in their own self interest. Since most of the EU (with a few notable exceptions) see the world where they believe that the appeasement of terrorists and keeping the focus on the US (instead of them) is in their self interest, I don't expect much from them. Actually, the country that will change the most as a result of the liberation of Iraq is Iran. The people there have already proven that they're willing to take on a government in order to end repression. Unfortunately, it didn't end up the way that they planned when the Shah was deposed and the naive and misguided politics of the Carter administration failed to realize that what would replace the Shah was even more repressive and backwards.

3. WWIII started on 9/11/01. We've been fighting it ever since.

1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

Highly likely as the military solution has already been treated as the only solution. This tells me that the thinking in and around the Bush administration is heavily weighted toward the Pentagon. We have a war-like administration with expectations that seem to be based on fiction, not reality, and when the reality bites back, the denial/fear machines go into full force.

Bomb Iran and cause revolution against the theocracy. That's the plan, so it looks. Nothing but a good outcome is expected, I am sure. When that doesn't happen, then we can expect familiar spins on the subject. This administration never makes a mistake, except hiring some non-believers.

Oh well, we can yammer about it all we want, and it won't make a bit of difference.

2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?

Don't know. Some will be okay with it, others won't. Maybe a better question is what will the people of the United States have as a response? Another military adventure might swing attitudes away from the administration, possibly Congress away from Republicans in 2006.

3.) Would this constitute WWIII?

The war on terror is not World War III by any stretch of the imagination. Nukes would be flying if this effort to control terrorism was WW III. Major cities worldwide would be gone by now, and the rest of us would be trying to get away from hot zones and ground zeros.

Instead, we are buying monster trucks like mad. This has no resemblence to a world war -- the US population is only vaguely aware that war is actually going on, sort of, against insurgents (or terrorists, or whatever) who have no country, no air force, no navy, just a bunch of conventional explosives and weapons left behind after the liberation.

In a real world war, rationing would be going on. We'd be under martial law. Every able bodied person would be supporting the war (through work, not belief) effort in some manner, and even the disabled via computer systems. Finance and manufacturing would be nationalized, freedoms sharply curtailed.

Nope, not WW III. That could be coming up, though. Get yer kicks while you can, eh? Seems to be the thing to do.

What will spark WW III is a nuclear air attack somewhere, and then the secret alliances will come into play -- probably automatically and very quickly. Most of us won't know what happened, nor will it matter.

It looks to me also that only those who grew up with the Cold War have this sense. Some younger folks seem to think that war doesn't really involve personal suffering. There also seems to be an attitude that nuclear war isn't possible any longer. Equating the war on terror (a stretch in and of itself) with world war is what makes me pause and ponder, and to ask the questions:

What countries have declared war on one another? The US on Iraq? Well, that one is over. Mission accomplished. Fighting still goes on, but not on the scale of actual war where the body counts run into the hundreds and thousands, possibly millions now, per battle. With nuke war, who will be left to count? Who will care?

Anyway, I hope whatever the administration is planning to do with Iran works for peace and not world war. Eh, make that a prayer. Please don't mess up again. It'll upset the monster truck market.

Actually, Iran has enjoyed the benefits of being an NPT Party. This means, since you don't appear to be aware of it, that it has received international assistance through the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation (TC) framework. Far from being discouraged from obtaining a nuclear program, it has received direct assistance and encouragement so long as it remained in compliance to not violate its obligations and persue weapons capability. On this matter Iran is in flagrant violation, which it even admits at this point. Membership of he NPT is not obligatory. Countries that wanted to develop nuclear weapons stayed out of the NPT — France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea has withdrawn.

Per the question, as Horyok mentioned with the odds, there is no way we are going to engage in another military conflict in Iran. We will not be bombing their nuclear facilities, as they are spread throughout the country and in a much more advanced stage of development than Iraq back when the Israelis bombed theirs. Bombing wouldn't set them back very far. I don't think it's necessary anyway. There is extreme internal pressure from a population, over half of which is under 25. Iran still holds some democratic elections. Khatami's overwhelming victory was evidence of the population's wish to reform. The population which placed the theocratic elements in power to begin with will likely be the ones who ultimately remove them.

1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

The short answer is yes.

Condoleeza Rice continues to bluster at Iran, telling the world that Iran needs to do what the rest of the region is doing, “moving towards a democracy.”

It’s nice that she completely ignores the unelected and autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

George W. Bush truly believes he is on a mission from God, which is comical, considering that there’s not one scripture anywhere in the Bible authorizing a Christian to engage in carnal warfare.

2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?

Iran is not Iraq. It’s slightly larger than Alaska and has close to three times as many people.

Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn’t been sandbagged by 12 years of strict sanctions. It’s armor and transports are not 12 years old, like they were in Iraq.

It has a real airforce. Iraq did not.

Its generals are not as fearful of the U.S. as their counterparts in Baghdad were.

Any attack upon Iran will likely be ordered in the White House, but come from Tel Aviv. I honestly believe the Busies will all but greenlight an Israeli strike on Iran’s so-called nuclear facilities.

One can see this by the allusions made by Bush officials who say: "We're not going to do anything, but we don't know Israel will do."

Any attack on Iran will have terrible results. First, many of Iran’s nuclear research centers are sited in urban areas, making civilian casualties a certainty.

Second, what does Washington expect Iran to do? Sit back and let Israel get away with it?

More importantly, what do the Bushies think millions of ordinary Muslims will do after it has become patently clear now that his invasion of Iraq is nothing more but a first move in a Crusade against Islam?

What would be the reaction of Iraq Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, a Shi’ite, who is ideologically close to his brethren to the east in Iran?

How could any Shi’ite accept a U.S.-Israeli attack upon Iran, the home of the Shia belief?

The effects could be catastrophic, ranging from the bombing of oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz by Iranian warplanes to retaliatory attacks upon Israel proper by Chinese designed Iranian missiles.

There also could be a flood of attacks against Saudi and Kuwait oil installations by those angered by the this latest assault on Islam.

3.) Would this constitute WWIII?

It will not mean World War III, since Britain has already told the U.S. it will not participate in an attack against Iran and Russia will not come to Iran’s aid.

But it will result in more impressionable and angry young Muslim men flocking to mosques and terror training centers around the globe.

It will mean the money flow to groups like al Qaeda will increase.

And any attack will probably destroy the budding momentum for a lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.

In a worst -case scenario, Iran could order its Republican Guard to cross the Iran-Iraq border to confront U.S. forces.

But this would be suicidal, since U.S. airpower would invariably carry the day.

However, there would be no doubt that thousands of furious Iranians would slip across the border with Iraq and join the insurgency.

To be honest, I did not know much about NPT so I looked it up at the Wikipedia and here it is:



Looking at this, it seemes that the whole purpose of this treaty is to monopolize the Nuclear weapons. By the way what or who gives the right to a country to force others disarm while they own huge stockpiles of nukes?

Don't forget, there has never been a nuclear attack on earth since the US wiped Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of existence. If the goal of this treaty is to prevent MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) from happening, then everybody has to disarm, including the big five.

I think (hope) we both know that as long as there are nukes available (especially with so many after the fall of the Soviet empire unaccounted for), there is no way to eliminate all, and eliminating unilaterally would be potentially suicidal. The purpose of the treaty is not to eliminate nukes, but to prevent them from ever being used. It is the logic of force that the more armed groups there are, the greater the potential for predatory violence. Predatory violence involving nuclear warheads and unstable governments, Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists, criminals, ethnic separatists, ect, is an almost unimaginably dangerous potentiality. In other words, nuclear weapons in many hands increases the likelihood that they will be used and decreases the ability to deter it.

That is the reason for the NPT. It discourages countries from obtaining such weapons by offering assistance and financial incentives to them for signing in to it. It is not obligatory. Iran could develop nuclear weapons. What it does not have the right to do is to continue enjoying the benefits of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a signatory while violating it. I won't delve further into this here, because I have already answered the topic question and nuclear weapons is a separate issue.

Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

Unfortunately, I think it is impossible to rule out war with Iran…especially after reading the news the last few days.



Here we go again, using vague scare tactics and alienating the rest of the world with our belligerence...and slapping another Middle Eastern country across the face with a glove, challenging them to another “duel”. I’m curious to know what, if any evidence there is of Iran’s intent to build nuclear weapons. Is this going to be another WMD excuse by the Bush administration to invade another country? Quite possible, is my opinion.

Would this constitute WWIII?
I shudder to think.

...maybe Nostradamus was right?

Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

I don't really have enough information to speculate about that. I know that the Bush Administration has not disregarded military conflict as an option, but Iran poses a very different problem than Iraq or Afghanistan. I would imagine that after referral to the Security Council, a discussion on sanctions would be the first step. Russia is opposed to this option, and beyond that...I don't know. I suppose it depends upon the moves that each of the players make.

The Europeans are currently trying to negotiate with the Iranians, and they want Iran to end uranium enrichment, but from what I understand, uranium enrichment isn't actually a violation of the the NPT as long as it's used for fuel reasons. Iran, of course, is claiming that it is, and they feel that they have a legitimate right to persue a civilian nuclear program.

The IAEA has a country profile for Iran that details their findings regarding the country's nuclear program.

I'm just watching the situation, because it appears to me that there's a lot of tough talk going on, but we are definitely still in the diplomacy stage.

The UNSC referral Dr. Rice is threatening Iran with is not one to seek UN permission to wage war with Iran but for UN sanctions. This has been the usual routine..I see nothing alarming or even remotely hinting at the idea that these comments from our Sec. of State are now making it "impossible to rule out war with Iran" America has been asking for UN sanctions against Iran for quite some time now..nothing new. Exactly what drastic change in policy to you see from these comments?


When was the US not the aggressor of the international alliance all in opposition to Iran's nuclear pursuits?
And how do you classify this comment or the many others as alienating ourselves or even being belligerent? Germany does not want Iran to have nuclear arms. France does not and the PM of Britain is vocally supporting the US admin's claims.. Mr. Blair also when asked did not rule out an attack on Iran's facilities.


link

Perhaps you can explain how the US position differs from that of her allies?




Could you provide some sources for these claims? I would like to see exactly when and in what context the UK pledged not to assist the US.

If George Bush was willing to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same to Iran.

I'm hoping it will never get to that stage, or that the UN will actually do something to stop another war breaking out, but for the moment I'm not very optimistic.

You find nothing alarming about: President Bush has refused to rule out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.? I'm sorry, the thought of bombing a nuke plant makes me a little more than slightly uneasy, especially with Bush at the controls.

Of course, there's no change in policy; where did I infer there was? Bush's policy is to rule the world (Bush translation: "bring democracy to the middle east"); same ol' same ol'. I'm sure he will come up with a frightening scenario to keep Americans scared and believing only he can keep them safe. Same war, different country.

Our European "allies" will part ways with the US if and when Bush decides to attack Iran. None of us can predict the future, but past behavior is a pretty darned good indicator.

You find nothing alarming about Iran promising to step up their nuclear program if they feel threatened?

We are in a dangerous time in world history. We have fought many battles and have lost much blood. We were attacked...and we responded. We went into Afghanistan and took out the oppressive and terrorist regime in the Taliban replacing it with a democratic future. We are attacking the Al Queda network in a global war. We invaded Iraq and captured the tyrant Saddam Hussein and recently, the Iraqi people have finally cast their ballots as free people...not as pawns who had their ballot box already checked for Saddam.

I don't understand how people think we are in more danger than before.

Under Bush:
-Taliban destroyed; Afghanistan liberated
-Saddam captured; Iraq liberated
-Libya gives up nuclear program and opens trade with US
-Al Queda Network being hunted down and destroyed

Meanwhile...in Europe
-UN Oil for Food gives Saddam billions to build up his palaces
-EU lifts ban on arms sales to China
And others

Iran is a threat...always has been. I do not think that military force will be necessary right now...but why in hell would we put it out of the question? Bush isnt instilling fear. It is there...right on the table. Iran with nuclear weapons. If that doesn't get you scared then what will?

Oh, Puhleeezzz...

It is, and has been for the past 100 years or so Standard Operating Procedure for ANY administration not to take anything off the table in situations like these. You don't tell someone like the Iranians, "Well, if you do this or that, we won't attack you, but we'll be really, really angry with you." That will sure work.

1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?



No, the US is not engaged in a military conflict with Iran, and most likely won't be. Depends on what Iran does. If they attack Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey or even Europe or others, then the US would likely become involved militarily in some way or the other.

As it stands right now, the EU appears to be taking the diplomatic lead in regards to Iran and I'm comfortable with that. I don't think the US will do anything to disupt that process.

1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?


No, if anything it will be a naval blockade.






2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?

If we blockade Iran Europe will scream because Iran provides a large percentage of their oil and they have no reserves. Hissy fits will be thrown by some NATO countries and the Russians.






3.) Would this constitute WWIII?

No.

Thanks Aquilla..I was wondering has any US president gone on the world stage and explicitly ruled out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. And as I had shown in my last posting..Blair avoided the same explicitness.


No a break down in diplomacy with Iran happened pre-Bush. Clinton called Iran an "international outlaw" and during his presidency we suffered an attack (that did result in a loss of life) which openly many believe the Iranians were involved with

I found it very shocking that a country with such a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is afraid of a possible nuke owner.

Lets face is, No country in the world can compete militarily with the US. The US will always have more nukes and thus starting a nuclear arms race is no more than suicide. Everybody knows this and the Iranians are no fools.

If you really believe that Iraq is liberated, I have no word for you. Please go there and see for yourself and decide after that. Talk to the people there. I think your opinion will change quite a bit.(I used to be a die-hard supporter for Bush, especially after the two terrorist attacks in Istanbul that killed many people.) Mine did. But never say Iraq is liberated by simply looking at the news.

I find it quite funny that the only nation in the world that has ever launched a nuclear attack on civilians and wiped two cities out of existence (Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to think itself morally so high when it comes to WMD. If someone needs to be disarmed, I believe it is the US.

But nuclear capability does not become more or less effective with the number of nukes. If I am a dixtator and my country had 5 missiles and I launched them pre-emptively against (say) Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Seattle (or wherever) - then straight away you have lost a huge section of populace, economic capability etc, not to mention the potential disarray that destroying major metropolises would cause.

That the US may fire 1000 nuclear missiles in retaliation does not matter as far as the US is concerned other than to obliterate a lot of civilians who had no real choice in the matter (I'm a dictator remember)...sure I may die - but then remember that I'm meant to be a crazed dictator anyway...

Until an effective defence against nuclear missiles is developed, then having even a small nuclear stockpile is a considerable weapon.

Correction, small nuclear stockpile and a delivery system. I'm not sure how many ICBMs North Korea in in possession of. I don't think it's a high number

Of these, the number that can reach the US is though to be zero if I'm not mistaken.

North Korea is threat to South Korea and Japan, that is why the US is slow to move on the issue.

Not only that, but the chance of economic pressure working is greater since North Korea has almost no economic power to speak of, unlike oil rich Iraq which could ride out sanctions indefinitely.

Oh contrare, in the Old Testament there is. I listened to a whole sermon on it, rationalizing the acceptability of it for the Christians. (I'm no Christian, but I listen to what they're saying). Guess what, according to the preacher on the radio, the first recorded war was Israel against Iraq. It's in Genisis I think...but don't quote me on that. Anyhow, some wise guy in Jerusalem gave Abraham his blessing for going to war to rescue his nephew...Lott I think. Anyhow, that was the Christion justification and scriptural blessing for the war.



This is my second effort to respond to this, and it is important, so I hope this one works.

Here are reasons why we are less safe than before Iraq:

Most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, not Iraqi...why didn't we attack Saudi instead? http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

Russia aiding Iran, Israel asks them to stop, Russia denies it. What does that mean, Russia denies it, but it was a "secret deal". If it weren't true, why wouild Israel ask them to stop? What does that mean???http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/rusiran/missover.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_iran.html

The tsunami disaster left houndreds, perhaps thousands of orphans who were quite plausible "rescued" by terrorist organizations. Thanks to conspiracy theorists, and Al-jazeera, they probably believe that the US/Israel/India were behind it (possible):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42271
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_serv...service_id=6522

N. Korea announces that it has Nukes now, we already know that Pakistan, and India have them. What will China do???


http://encarta.msn.com/column_nukes_tamimh...osgotnukes.html

Our military has been stretched already. Our hardware has undergone serious wear and tear depreciation in the dessert for years now.

American actions have led to widespread hatred of America ranging from the Middle East to South and Central America and beyond.

All of the torture accusations - and convictions, with no real action to stop it, or hold high ranking personell accountable makes America look horrible to others.

The fact that we are the only nation to unleash nuclear bombe, EVER, and our current invasion is using depleted uranium certainly will give rise to hatred and enemies.
http://tinyurl.com/6yhcl

I'm sure that all those mothers giving birth to mutated monsters will blame America, and rightfully so.

My only conclusion is that the only action that we as a people can take to stop the inevitable WWIII is to IMPEACH BUSH!

Remember, he is a hardcore, devout Christian. He believes he is saved, and I would venture to guess that he believes in the Apocalypse. He probably thinks this is the end of the World, and as such has no fear of creating it. The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.



That came from this site, a MUST READ for anyone who's willing to pay attention!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10...erer-christian/

If this is WWIII, America is responsible, and it is Christian fundamentalism behind it.

Bush couldn't do much in Iran anyways. He is steadily losing support for his methods.
Recruitment is down 10% and our functional troop ability is compromised due to the numbers of wounded in the iraq/Afganistan wars.
No one will support Bush on Iran--I doubt even Blair could garner enough support at home to commit the brits to Iran.
I doubt our economy could handle another war.




1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.? Again No. Bush wont get the support he needs. Either here at home or abroad.

2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses? The fear in other countries towards us grows daily. The "As long as they fear us I don't care" attitude of Bush and his supporters will backfire on us sooner or later. As the economies of other nations continues to grow--China, Inia, and the EU begins to solidify and grow America will begin to lose our status as the economic leader. Quite simply we can be replaced eventually if we continue to allow bad economic policy to destroy our economy and weaken our dollar.
plus that nagging little problem of our debt being bought up by foreign entities. Sooner or later the people who own the notes can begin to pull strings. beware loan sharks.

3.) Would this constitute WWIII? According to the conservative radio show monkeys and their constant chirping I thought we were already engaged in WWIII.

So would it actually be WWIII version 2.0?


Iran's population has 70% under 30 years old with 60% being mid twenties. Leave them alone and they will find their own freedom. Use President Bush's Pre emptive strategy and you will only get anger in response. Iranians may want their freedom--but they do not want to be Americans or our help. Considering how badly we screwed up in Iran the first time--really when you make people prefer religious wackos over us you have really messed things up.

and finally no I do not feel at all threatened by Iran.

Today's(Feb.12th,2005) Washington Post has an excellent article by Dafna Linzner and Walter Pincus titled "U.S. Reviewing it's intelligence on Iran." Evidently the intelligence that we do have on Iran is being looked at from a variety of angles. Iran's weakness as a result of the Iran/Iraq war is being reassessed, as well as their chemical/nuclear capabilities. Noticeably absent in the preparation of this documetn is policymakers, who had quite a bit to do with the intelligence on Iraq. The administration does seem to have learned it's lesson in being so presumptuous and listening to exiles who. . .got fairly creative on evidence. I do believe that we will have an armed conflict against Iran for one reason. I believe this because:



Washington Post article(registration required)



I don't believe that we have much to worry about in this regard. Russia won't care, and it wouldn't matter if they would since their military is a laughingstock of what it use to be. China is modernizing, and North Korea's leader is busy engaging in his infantile interests.



It would be no such thing, since the other major powers of the world will stand mostly on the sideline. They might transport weapons and that kind of thing, but rifles and other such help will not defeat the world's most modernized/technological force.

The Bushies are only threatening to attack Iran because they are smug in their belief that the U.S. is immune to any blowback.

This is the same kind of thinking that permeated Congress for years.

"It's okay to back Israel to the hilt in its battle with the Palestinians, because there's little the Palestinians can do and the Arab world is disunited. We have nothing to fear."

Sure.

And you notice, the Bushies are in no real hurry to take it to North Korea.

Just wanted to add a few more reasons as to why war with Iran is imminent. The Washington Post reported to day(Feb.13th) in an article by Dafna Linzer that the U.S. has been using pilotless drones to scout out Iraqi anti-aircraft capabilities, as well as to detect any radiation from potential nuclear work that the Iranians may have been engaged in. The violation of another natino's airspace is a serious matter, and it's one that is not undertaken for light reasons. Likewise, in Iraq, we used the no-fly zones to bsically pick apart Iraq's anti-aircraft missiles and batteries as thorough as we could. Second, rheotric in Iran appears to heat up as Rafsanjani, a moderate mind you, blasted the U.S. position on no nuclear power for Iran as being hypocritical.

I don't see the relationship between the no-fly zones (used to monitor and prevent attacks on the population, not "pick apart Iraq's anti-aircraft missiles and batteries". If they didn't shoot at us, we had no authorization to shoot under the rules of engagement), and drones over Iran. News flash, we use drones for the same reason we use spy satellites and spies for that matter. Not just in Iran. Other nations do this, too. In fact, an Iranian drone flew over Israel in November. Is an attack on Israel from Iran imminent?

I think the reference is to a tactic that's been used by many nations for many years. The basic idea is to fly a recon airplane on a flight path that looks like it could be a bomber pentetration mission against another country and activate their air defense systems. As soon as they "light things up", you turn away having gathered intelligence information on how their air defense system works. The US and the Soviets used to do that to each other quite often up in the frozen north using Soviet "Bears" and US RC-135's. It was a quite fun sport actually and it gave both sides something to do other than to sit and shiver in front of their radar screens.

I can't imagine that using a UAV to do this would be terribly effective though, all you're going to get from that is how the other side reacts to a UAV. I suspect if the US really wanted to do this with the Iranians, they'd use something a little bit more threatening like an F-18.

I have yet to see anyone notice this, but it looks like this really is about oil. In 200 Saddaam attampted to convert all his oil sales to the Euro, thereby committing his mortal sin. It had little to do with his brutality, that was just the propaganda. This war was to keep the dollar as the "marker" for oil.

Iran is reported to be setting up a new "bourse" for oil, based on the Euro. I suggest a read of this article to explain what seems to be going on.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

You may not be aware of this because it was heavily censored in the US. In fact, the article won the "Project Censored" award in 2004. Here's the project censored 2005 site: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/

I hope people are really paying attention.

Antny, I found this story about Iraq's switch to the Euro in the highly-censored, corporate media that is ... cnn.com. I also remember reading about it in the Financial Times when it happened. The deal was that Iraq was dealing oil in "Oil for Food" to primarily Europeans, and wanted to deal in their currency. Of course, we now know that the whole program, including its UN overseers, was corrupt and a sham.

The Iran / Euro connection was noted in 2002 in the highly-censored media that is ... "oil and gas" - an industry newsletter.


I also read about the Iran "bourse" idea in that highly censored media that is ... The Daily Kos, who further linked to the (uk) guardian. I can't believe that Rumsfeld and Bush didn't "silence" him after he leaked this red-hot story that was only 2 or 4 years old at the time. The man is lucky to be alive, if you ask me.

Kos floats an interesting theory, but it's just that. Interesting. Sometimes, when A is true and B is true, that doesn't mean that A caused B. If Iran is floating an idea to trade oil in Euro, that's a potential blow to the dollar, yes. Of course, Iran is violating the non-proliferation treaty, funding terrorists, and we have committed to eliminating state-sponsored terror, especially that would include nuclear weapons. I'm sure that time will prove you wrong, but no matter what happens in the future, you'll always be able to go back and find these tenuous connections and assert "war for oil." After all, we invaded Afghanistan just so Halliburton could build that gas pipeline, right?

No democratic regime has ever had a conflict with another on this level. Irag with their newly elected representatives is not the first glimmer of hope for democracy in the Middle East, Iran is. They tried to run their country based on the Sharia and it became nessacary to form a republic. Iran has elected moderates as a matter of course ever since, this means Iran is a lot more stable then most Islamic countries with the possible exception of Turkey.



That would depend on who was at fault, these people are not mindless and if Iran took on the US they would need serious provocation. Honestly, do you think the the Bush administration is that stupid?



Of course it would, all the major powers would be involved and we would face the cascade effect. In all the many war games the Pentegon has played the worse case scenerio is when countries intervene in a conflict trying to resolve the situation. What this does is esculate it and the US and Iran are aware of the fact that they cannot engage in military conflicts. The consequeces would be too great and there would be nothing to gain.

I don't see us invading Iran for four reasons:

1. We don't have the manpower. We're barely keeping up defending ourselves from a rebellion a tenth of the size of our forces in Iraq.

2. It's the wrong message sent to the middle east. Iraq was supposed to be some seed to spread democracy. Invading another country to force democracy down their throats hardly justifies that premise.

3. They'll have to provide concrete proof of Iran being a problem. I always thought Iran was a problem, but that's because I believed the same people who said Iraq had WMD ready to sell to terrorists who would fly more airplanes into our buildings. Without a picture of Iran pointing a loaded missile at the corner of 42nd street and the Avenue of the Americas in downtown Manhattan, they got nothin'.

4. They don't have to. Britain won't wait for a revolution to fix the problem while Iran goes nuclear. Britain is in range to get nuked - we aren't. So, if Britain goes to war, we'll contribute as their ally as we always have.

But really, if Britain isn't doing anything extraordinary to prevent Iran going nuclear, there is no real threat. They are the ones who have something to lose.

DaytonRocker

The UK has a nuclear deterrent (Trident submarines) sailing around the world. There is little 'extraordinary' we could do to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, militarily we are extremely constrained, so we would probably be relying the guarantee of nuclear retaliation to forestall an Iranian nuclear attack.

And UK / Iranian relations aren't 'that' bad at the moment. Sure, they aren't great, but the UK has been at war with most people on the planet at some point in history (excepting the Swiss) - so we've had to develop some pretty good diplomatic skills to survive in these gloomy post-Empire days....

(optimistically)...

I don’t think World War III will ensue. For the following reasons:

Iran has no longtime strategic military alliances with anyone. Its closest neighbors are Afghanistan and Iraq, both now ruled by regimes quite friendly to the United States.

While Iran is an Islamic country, it is not an Arab Islamic country. And it’s main brand of Islam is Shi’ite, not Sunni, which is the branch that dominates most of the Muslim world.

For this, and other reasons, I sincerely doubt Egypt, Libya or Pakistan will come to Iran’s aid.

Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel guarantees it the second highest amount of U.S. foreign aid annually, which Cairo would hate to lose.

Libya, whose leader Moammar Khadafy has apparently gotten over the 1986 killing of his 3-year old daughter by U.S. Air Force jets, now relishes its renewed relations with the West.

And Pakistan is America’s erstwhile ally in the War on Terror. Its president Pervez Musharraf desperately needs U.S. money and arms to stay in power.

That leaves Syria, long a hot bed of intrigue and terror mastermind meetings. But Syria is too weak militarily to have any impact in the Persian Gulf.

And Jordan is too dependent on the good graces of the U.S. and Israel to be a factor.

While China and Russia support Iran diplomatically and love to sell Tehran arms, neither will do much except mouth off in the aftermath of any attack.

In fact, an attack may actually help China and Russia, because Tehran will be even more eager to purchase new arms with its oil wealth.

Britain has already said it would not take part in any attack on Iran and its PM Tony Blair is now begging U.K. voters to give him a third term.

Even Blair has publicly acknowledged that his support of Bush’s invasion of Iraq has eroded his once solid support in Britain. I doubt Blair’s government could survive his joining in on an attack on Iran.

Which leaves the question of Israel.

I believe the Bushies will greenlight an Israeli air strike on Iran.

It's quick and it won't cost any U.S. lives. The people in the Bush White could always feign public displeasure while grinning giddily behind closed doors.

Again, this won’t cause World War III.

But it would evoke a nasty political reaction from around the world.

There is nothing stoping Iran from getting control of the bomb, that is just a simple fact. Now we can call them all the names we like but they will have nuclear capabilities in the next five years. For some strange reason Israel has not bombed their plants where they are making this happen, if they thought this was a threat they would have by now. Iran does not pose an imminant threat to the US even if they have nuclear capabilities and we won't go to war over this given the circumstances we are currently faced with.

I disagree. Israel most certainly considers Iran to be a threat. Look at the airspace they would have had to traverse to bomb Iran's facilities. We have occupied that airspace for the past 12 or so years. Therefore, we could never claim ignorance to the fact that we knew they were going to bomb Iran's nuke plants. We would have been waging war, indirectly, on Iran by allowing Israel to do so. We are likely the very ones who have stood in its way.

I agree.

Israel is most afraid of any Arab frontline state gaining nuclear capability.

This is the reason why it bombed the Osirak reactor of Iraq, which at the time, was a nominal ally of the U.S.

If Israel attacks Iran (and I think it’s more of a question of when, not if), there are few people on this planet who will not believe that Israel was given the green light to do so by Washington.

I just don’t think the Bushies fully understand the concept of Jihad.

Particularly, now that it’s come out that White House and FAA both received specific warnings about 9-11 and did nothing about them.

But I don’t believe Israel can keep nuclear arms away from its enemies forever.

And this is a terrible shame.

Because Israel is a vibrant and shiny democracy.

When Israel does attack Iran, it will be an extension of the United States' crusade against fundamentalist Islam.

edited for spelling of Orsirak

]1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?

No. At least not a war. Our troops are all tied up in Iraq. Theoretically Bush could solve this dilemma by instituting a draft, but I don't think he would do that. Perhaps some bombing though.

2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?

a. Increase in terrorism (more interference=more hate=increased terrorist activity. Iran is run by religious government. Therefore this kind of an invasion may be worse then the one Iraq for our middle eastern image)

b. An general increase-abroad-in the belief that America is immature. (It will be a big add on to our shoot first ask questions later image)


3.) Would this constitute WWIII?

I don't think so. Conventionally Iran should easy opponent (unless they have modernized much since the Iraq-Iran war). It wouldn't be that hard for our stealth bombers to knock out the nukes. The war itself shouldn't be that difficult. Its in the aftermath, that the real struggle would take place.

There is one thing I fail to understand:

I am no diplomat or politician and diplomatic treaties hold very little in my eyes. I find it very odd when a country is accused of holding nuclear arms by a country that has them in great numbers. If the US has nukes, isn't it my right as an equal human of a different civilization to hold similar weapons for self-defense. If the US is unconfortable about other nations having nuclear arms, so am I about the US having nuclear arms.

That is why I am not against Iran or any other nation to start its nuclear program. Unless US, Russia, China and all other countries disarm, every other nation has an equal right to develop nucler weapons.

WW3 can surely start. What is happening now is quite similar to what happaned in late 1930s. Hitler's Third Reich began annexing other nations but after Poland, the world said "Enough!". I fear that a similar thing might happen today. Although I totally disagree with the Bush's policy, I certanly do not want more deaths.

What is being overlooked is that Iran, by it's own choice, is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Three nations: Israel, India, and Pakistan decided not to sign the treaty. They made that choice, because they would rather have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. The Iranian government could have made a similar decision, but they didn't because there are benefits to being a signatory. They receive knowledge about nuclear technology from other states who are more advanced than they are. This is meant to be used for peaceful, civilian purposes. If they want to continue to receive that knowledge, they must abide by the terms of the agreement. If they don't, Iran can always make the decision to pull out of the treaty.

Iran's Nuclear Threat

At this point Israel has not exausted the diplomatic options, military action is and has allways been an option. I'm not saying that they don't take this seriously but if they thought this was an immanent threat they would have acted by now. If they take action then there will be consequences that make the problems in Irag seem trite. Bush laid down the gauntlet when he said that you are either with us or against us. What would our options be if Israel used the "Osirak option", could the US be opposed to such a thing?

Iran's nuclear program is much more developed at this point than Iraq's ever was. This isn't as simple as Osirak. Even if those sites could be effectively bombed (I'm doubtful, there are perhaps two dozen suspected sites, much of which is likely underground). Bombing those sites would not set them back very far. Hamid-Reza Asefi, Spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Iran's nuclear intentions has this to say:

As far as the repercussions go, they would be enormous. Iran would have a demonstrable reason to continue a nuclear weapons program, and much of the world would stand behind them. Likely, any attempts by the US to place sanctions through the UN would be absolutely futile in such a case. Next, Iraq is over half Shi'a. The new government is heavily Shi'a. How would the population of Iraq respond to a US backed attack on their breathren? I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think the US can sit by and allow Israel to fly through and bomb, knowing the repercussions it would bring to us. The costs to benefits aren't worth it.

Nobody has picked up on this yet, so I'll throw it out there. Oil has been a top National Security issue for dacades. We know this. The current competition is from the Euro. Economically is is very interesting, as the dollar falls on the World market, and the Euro rises. In 2000, Saddam decided to decree that all his oil should be sold in Euro, not dollars. For that, he paid dearly.

.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html


Now, Iran is in the process of setting up an oil "bourse" based on Euro.




It is very reasonable to justify War in Iran with this in mind. It is economic vulnerability, not military that could be the USA's Achille's heel.

Now, I have seen reported in several places that Russia backs Iran. They have contracted the nuclear plants there, and aren't about to let them be blown up. Russia still has it's nuclear arsenal, and isn't exactly a military nobody.

It is also noteworthy that as the EU struggles against the US economic dominance, Iran's new oil bourse, and the petroeuro/petrodollar conflict may indeed provide motivation to defend Iran.

If the Bush Admin is crazy enough to attack Iran, or let Israel do it, it could very well lead to a massive conflict worthy of being a legitimate WWIII. There are plenty of nations ready to remove the US from it's "on top of the world status".

If we invade a third nation, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the global community goes, (IMO).

I also believe that you cannot underestimate the power of apocalyptic religious beliefs in the US government. They may very well want the apocalypse, and be intent on creating it. the old "self-fullfilling prophecy" bit. Creating the "End of Days" is probably viewed as a noble ambition for true believers in the Book of Revelations. That issue cannot be overlooked.