US - Iran on the Horizon?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by JayDelight729, Sep 13, 2007.

  1. JayDelight729

    JayDelight729 Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Section 101
    Good article that I found linked on the Drudge Report. Looks like Germany is protecting their own ass and not backing sanctions against Iran's nuclear program.

    The Bush Administration is now fuming and looks to begin planning for intervention with two different scenarios: physically blockade import/export of Iran oil or aerial attacks.

    Thoughts?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html
     
  2. monop_poly

    monop_poly Member

    May 17, 2002
    Chicago
    I love the part where a blockade is too painful for the Iranian people, so therefore the less painful scenario -- weeks of American bombing -- should be pursued as the less painful course of action:

    "The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

    On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets."

    My thoughts are that the President has no Constitutional authorization to start a war against Iran; however, it's not like Cheney gives a rip about the Constitution.
     
  3. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    The drumbeat is getting louder. A few articles over just the last week or so ... like this one (though perhaps a little excitable - or maybe not).

    As for your link above ... take a look at this:
    You've heard that conventional wisdom before. Everyone has. But look very closely at the implications of that statement: If we leave Iraq then Iran moves in. Therefore, if we want to leave Iraq we have to bomb Iran into submission.

    Anyway, someone should start a pool about this! :D
     
  4. JayDelight729

    JayDelight729 Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Section 101
    Pretty scare stuff.

    I think we all know that the administration has had its on eye on Iran for years. Hell, weren't they included in the original "Axis of Evil?"

    Not sure how this one plays out, but I don't see Iran going down in the same light as Iraq. While the conflict and violence in Iraq has stayed in Iraq, I have a feeling Iran will go down kicking and screaming. This will be very, very ugly. With Israel in deep trouble.
     
  5. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Military action against Iran would be an even bigger cluster******** than our little adventure in Iraq has been. Much bigger.

    For one thing, Iran has more than two and a half times more people than Iraq.

    For another thing, while the USA has had all sorts of sanctions against Iran for the past 30 years, most of the rest of the world hasn't. And Iran hasn't exactly had to jump through the same hoops to sell its oil that Iraq did.

    And while the rank-and-file Iranians may or may not hate the ayahtollahs and their cabana-boy Ahmadinejad and no matter how pro-Western the populace might be, it is an undisputed fact that once the bombs fall and the bullets start flying, they'll take up arms against us.
     
  6. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed. I don't think there could be any justification for action against Iran. Their government sucks, but so what? The people of Iran aren't being brutalized the way Iraqis were under Saddam, and while Iranian foreign policy is a matter of regional and global concern, there's no impending crisis which could justify such a drastic measure. We would be attacking Iran in order to cover our ass in Iraq. Not exactly a great moment in American foreign policy.
     
  7. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

    "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.

    "We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070916184430.t5avfcg9&show_article=1
     
  8. daisrael

    daisrael Red Card

    Sep 20, 2006
    Dayton
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    It must be serious if France is willing to fight.
     
  9. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ******** both Israel and Iran. I want nothing to do with either of these nuclear nutjobs.
     
  10. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    :confused:Israel.......nuclear nutjob? How so?
     
  11. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nuclear - They have nuclear weapons
    Nutjobs - They believe that an invisible man in the sky deeded their land to them, not to mention the crazies that run that country who think peace with their neighbors is a bad idea.

    Screw them both.
     
  12. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    1. Nuclear weapons.....don't know what you talking bout.;)
    2. Who are the "crazies" that RUN the country who don't want peace?
     
  13. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Pretty much anything from Likud on right. You know, the dicks that don't want to recognise Palestine.
     
  14. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    while i agree that Likud has some nutjobs, currently, they are not running the country. Also, I think there is a difference b/w not wanting a Palestine and not agreeing to certain demands. I don't think for one second that any Likud member would hesitate to have a peaceful neigbor, however, the means to achieve that certainly vary among party members.
     
  15. daisrael

    daisrael Red Card

    Sep 20, 2006
    Dayton
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is that kinda like how none of the arab nations, or the persian one will recognize Israel?
     
  16. Katie!

    Katie! New Member

    Dec 4, 2006
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Ahhh, the always wonderful "but, but they're doing it too!" retort.
     
  17. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's why I said ******** them both
     
  18. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    No thinking person, after seeing the incompetence of this incumbency, would trust them with the keys to a Corvair, much less the US Military.
     
  19. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    So by that definition you're of the opinion of "******** the US?". Interesting.
     
  20. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I will fully admit that we are a bunch of nuclear nutjobs as well. That's why we need to butt out of this part of the world.

    But...We stole our land fair and square and we are quite cool with Mexico and Canada.
     
  21. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    I'm not sure they mean to fight.

    "We must negotiate right to the end,"

    I think that means something like "If you let me live, I'll give you Slovakia."
     
  22. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    So......you're arguing we should give up our nukes?
     
  23. daisrael

    daisrael Red Card

    Sep 20, 2006
    Dayton
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We are all going to give up our nukes. Superman is then going to fly them into the sun so that they will be destroyed and gone forever.
     
  24. JayDelight729

    JayDelight729 Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Section 101
    It all comes down to power and how everyone/country wants to be the almighty.

    In a perfect world where there was no greed, we could all sit back and enjoy what we have. Unfortunately, that is utopian fiction. There will always be someone who wants more and thus why we have conflict.

    Calling everybody a nuclear nut job is just a waste of time?

    Let's take a look at recent events:

    China, Russia don't want to pressure Iran. Why? Cause they are likely in cahoots with Iran. Oil, technology, etc. there is a profit all around.

    Germany doesn't want to pressure Iran. Why? Cause their economy is heaviliy invested in Iran. There's a lot at stake for Germany.

    France is threatening Iran and telling the world to prepare for the worst. Why? I have no clue. This strategy is completely different from what we are used to from the run and hide French.

    The US is now being rumored to planning air raids in the coming months on Iran. Why? 1. They don't want the balance of power to shift in the Middle East. 2. Israel could be heavily bombarded. (See 1). 3. No one knows what the Iranians are capable of doing/launching.
     
  25. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nope.
     

Share This Page