Are We Changing the Reasons to Attack Iran?

Originally posted by American Mad Man

I guess since there aren't millions of people in mass graves, and only thousands found so far, that it is OK.

You know - your right. Sadam isn't so bad after all now. He only had a few mass graves. And yeah, he tortured a lot of people, but they were his own people so in retrospect, I guess it was OK.

How can you all try to argue that Saddam wasn't that bad.

It is really sick that you do it just to attack Bush. I bet if it was your father/son/mother/daughter/friend, you would think a bit different.

No, of course it's not OK that only a few thousand graves have been found, not the tens of thousands that were estimated and expected.

Nobody is saying it was a bad idea to take out Saddam. It is GREAT that he's been taken down!!

It is just interesting that the US Government used the tactic of WMDs to initiate that war and take down Iraq. When that tactic didn't yield positive results, (i.e. WMDs all over the place like we were lead to believe) the quest to "liberate" Iraq went into very successful effect to placate those Americans hungry to find all those WMDs and confirm our justification for going to Iraq in the first place.

Now perhaps, just perhaps, Rice and the White House are laying the upfront groundwork here, preparation conditioning, if you will, to get us in the "right frame of mind" to attack Iran sometime in the future and focus our attack "purpose" on liberating the Iranian folks rather than going after their WMDs. The focus in recent GWB speeches has been nuclear in nature. Rice is now playing up the "liberation from the oppressive few" angle because the "nuclear threat" (WMD) pill is turning out to be a hard one to swallow for most of us Americans.

Who's attacking Bush?

Originally posted by jupiter869
Could the White House be setting the tone for a strike to free Iran’s citizens from “the unelected few” who run Iran rather than to attack Iran in order to relieve them of their weapons of mass destruction?
[edit on 4-2-2005 by jupiter869]

the problem is that most US citizens either don't know or don't wanna know that it was the US that placed this regime into power following the islamic revolution.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
What war that has ever been fought was legal? All wars are illegal because they involve murder.

Is it differnet to defend yourself from attack or if you attack someone because you think they will attack you later on?

If you were in charge what would you have done during WWI, WWII, and even the Gulf War if war isn't an option because it's illegal?

ThatsJustWeird, where did I post that war is not an option? I said it was illegal because war involves murder but I never said it was not an option.

The truth is that most wars are purposely started by bankers or governments for money and or resources. They plot and plan and therefore know that a war is going to start. They just have to figure out a way to make it happen in such a manner as to fool the masses.

Its unlikely it will succeed.

Congress is wisely rejecting the WMD excuse, they were suckered once by it, they wont be easily fooled a second time. The US public is pretty unhappy with Iraq, once we found there were no WMD.

Human rights abuses wont promt congress to allow an invasion. After all, look how long the Taliban got away with its abuses, and no one really felt like invading.

The only way Bush will ever successfully get support for an invasion of Iran is if there was an attack on US soil, or Iran attacked with nukes an ally, then support would skyrocket. So unless Bush stages another 9/11, I dont see it happening.

Look at Kosovo and Bosnia, human rights abuses all over there, and no one was in a hurry to smack down, and when we did, Clintons approval plummeted.

``

The underlying reason to war with Iran is what's known as:
Armageddon Politics
all those other reasons are just sparkles & whistles to attract attention.

Where did Secretary of State C. Rice go first?? Turkey!
evidently trying to shore up their(Turkish) commitments and resolve in supporting,
or at least not condemming,
the U.S. advances in the region (v. Iran).


for those who would wade through some logic & reasoning..heres the 7 page article: www.metahistory.org...

, later - you should explore the strategic Bosphorus Strait, and what Istanbul might do about more and escalating attacks from Zealots or whatever
from the territory of Iran..
.The existing Treaties that Turkey has with EU and NATO & USA etc, for the operation & free passage of commerce thru the Bosphorus Strait becomes void/suspended when-IF Turkey enters any war (the war on terror would suffice)see this www.american.edu...

Quote: In 1936 the Treaty of Montreaux, guaranteeing free passage in peacetime of the Bosphorus Straits was signed...

there were additional amendments enacted by Turkey in the1990's, which the international community groaned about, but accepted!

... Iran might be getting set up as the antagonist to Turkey... then putting the petro resources of the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Russia, Iran in a big lurch and in detriment to a energy hungry EU.
Iran is being painted into a corner!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Congress is wisely rejecting the WMD excuse, they were suckered once by it, they wont be easily fooled a second time. The US public is pretty unhappy with Iraq, once we found there were no WMD.

Human rights abuses wont promt congress to allow an invasion. After all, look how long the Taliban got away with its abuses, and no one really felt like invading.

1. Congress hasn't said or done anything yet.

2. Why do people continue to say "invasion"? Any attack on Iran will not involve an invasion of the country.