Iran next on menu

[Kopji]

Iran soon a military target?

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

...The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants to send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US already has its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4147892.stm

I believe that the BBC reporter is conveying an incorrect idea that the UK, and maybe Europe want to hear: The US is too busy with Iraq to go on further adventures.

Do not misjudge the current US administration: They are true believers in their actions, and that military action can achieve what they want for the Mideast.

 

[Kopji]

We need more conspiracy theories and paranoia on this forum. Whatta we think? Destination Iraq or Iran?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4162392.stm

The US has announced it is sending 700 paratroops to Iraq to boost security at its prisons there.

...The battalion, from the division's 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, will be deployed to Iraq over the next two months, Pentagon officials said on Wednesday.

 

[LucyR]

Don't really understand the situation.

But it's interesting that the US seems to have effectively eliminated Iran's nemesis. They seem to be the big winners in this situation.

I don't know why they just don't keep a low profile and stop drawing attention to themselves over the nuclear issue.

 

[Kopji]

Don't really understand the situation.

But it's interesting that the US seems to have effectively eliminated Iran's nemesis. They seem to be the big winners in this situation.

I don't know why they just don't keep a low profile and stop drawing attention to themselves over the nuclear issue.

The problem seems to have arisen from Iran hiding quite a lot of secret nuclear research. I suspect they'd like nothing better to have kept it that way. The irony perhaps, is that our preoccupation with other countries in the region made it easier for Iran to continue largely out of the spotlight till recently.

We are there in Iraq instead of Saddam, I doubt this makes Iran much happier except that their traditional ally the Shia will be in power when we leave. They must be thinking God works in mysterious ways...

The real danger as I see it, is for Iran to start feeling they have nothing to lose - that we are going to attack them no matter what. We get all blustery about having all ready taken care of one country and are looking for another - wink wink... and also start moving paratroops around that could easily be diverted to other important targets. They might get the wrong idea about our peaceful intent.

Even if the specialized and highly trained paratroops are indeed headed to act as guards leaning on shovels near a new Iraqi prison, our actions and words contain a somewhat dangerous message.

If the message is intended, it seems one better made by private diplomacy... if it is not intended, the years till the next president are gonna seem really long.

 

[swstephe]

i think so, but when and how?

i agree that iran is probably next on the menu. a *lot* of writers are saying the same thing. scott ritter, (the weapons inspector), was widely quoted for a while saying that the orders had already been given i believe that was back in june, but nothing has happened. others said that the usa was planning to bomb the nuclear facilities before the plutonium was in a certain state. i think there was some concern about the fact that russia and china are still considered allies with iran and would veto any u.n. resolutions, but not be able to defend military action. no idea, i'm putting odds on my 'lucky dates', months divisible by 3 and days divisible by 11, so september? december?

so what is it going to be? a quick, defiant, bombing run, (which has been done before), or is this going to be another north korea, [oh yeah -- those guys].

 

[Kopji]

Whats the difference in risk between a nuclear armed Iran and a conventional weaponed Iran?

To try and actually use one or two would invite a nuclear strike by Israel, if not the US. Even a threat would be dangerous for them.

 

[geni]

Don't really understand the situation.

But it's interesting that the US seems to have effectively eliminated Iran's nemesis. They seem to be the big winners in this situation.

I don't know why they just don't keep a low profile and stop drawing attention to themselves over the nuclear issue.

there were 3 countires in the axis of evil. On got invaded. One probably has nukes and didn't. From this it would appear that there is a logical course of action if you are the third.

 

[Kerberos]

Whats the difference in risk between a nuclear armed Iran and a conventional weaponed Iran?

That a nuclear armed Iran could use it's non-nuclear forces, with much greater impunity than a non-nuclear armed Iran.

To try and actually use one or two would invite a nuclear strike by Israel, if not the US. Even a threat would be dangerous for them.

They don't have to use them, they probably don't even have to threaten to use them, it's enough that Israel, the US and other foreign powers know they have them.

 

[kalen]

From the article quoted:

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

So he still thinks going to war in Iraq "secured" the US. This guy is still living in 2002. All this talk of "last option" reminded me of that time o' so long ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come.

(check out the banner: IRAQ: Denial and Deception)

The rhetoric against Iran isn't ramping up as fast as it did against Iraq, but it's there, and only getting louder. The only hope is that the American people won't let themselves be duped into another war. They should take the following advice a wise man once said:

"...fool me once....., shame on....... shame on you.... and fool me we can't get fooled again."

 

[Kopji]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerberos

That a nuclear armed Iran could use it's non-nuclear forces, with much greater impunity than a non-nuclear armed Iran.

---

Ok, I had to read that twice, but I agree that could be true.

Would a nuclear Iran be more destabilizing than a regional conventional war though? We might think Iran would fall like Iraq, but they are not led by a crazy guy like Iraq was. They are led by a bunch of crazy guys. Seem much less predictable and better armed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerberos

They don't have to use them, they probably don't even have to threaten to use them, it's enough that Israel, the US and other foreign powers know they have them.

---

I don't see things changing much until they had a delivery system though. (Presuming they are working on a weapon at all). By then they would be seen to be bald faced liars about peaceful power etc etc. Why not wait and strike then?

 

[geni]

Ok, I had to read that twice, but I agree that could be true.

Would a nuclear Iran be more destabilizing than a regional conventional war though? We might think Iran would fall like Iraq, but they are not led by a crazy guy like Iraq was. They are led by a bunch of crazy guys. Seem much less predictable and better armed.

If they have nukes we would find it much ahrder to stop them doing stuff

I don't see things changing much until they had a delivery system though. (Presuming they are working on a weapon at all). By then they would be seen to be bald faced liars about peaceful power etc etc. Why not wait and strike then?

They have boats. New york has a port.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

/Holding envelop to my forehead/ .... The next target of US interventionism will be.......... Venezuela. Do I get the million if it comes true? LOL

LLH

 

[swstephe]

They have boats. New york has a port.

they have jets and air launchable
cruise missles too! (but then it is hard to know who to believe these days).

do you guys see "iran" and imagine a vast wasteland run by a bunch of goatherders. where does that image come from? is it being lumped together with afghanistan? iran is actually a fairly industrialized country, (89.6% industrial/services vs. 11% agriculture according to cia fact book). they are 3 times as big as iraq and more than double the population.

i think that everyone should have the right to use nuclear power and weapons or nobody. who gave those particular countries the moral right to hold power and deny it from others?

 

[Kilted_Canuck]

they have jets and air launchable
cruise missles too! (but then it is hard to know who to believe these days).

do you guys see "iran" and imagine a vast wasteland run by a bunch of goatherders. where does that image come from? is it being lumped together with afghanistan? iran is actually a fairly industrialized country, (89.6% industrial/services vs. 11% agriculture according to cia fact book). they are 3 times as big as iraq and more than double the population.

i think that everyone should have the right to use nuclear power and weapons or nobody. who gave those particular countries the moral right to hold power and deny it from others?

I agree, and I hope the US realizes this and realizes the correct answer should be 'nobody'.

BTW, you're on Borneo? cool, my uncle is working in Brunei in the oil industry now.

 

[swstephe]

(89.6% industrial/services vs. 11% agriculture according to cia fact book)

i'm so ashamed, i typed the numbers off of the website and didn't even check that the numbers add up to 100.6%.

yes, i'm in brunei too. its the wealthiest per-capita country in south-east asia and most people haven't even heard of it.