US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I can only hope cooler heads prevail. With the Bush administration, though, I have little hope of a positive outcome. They have proven time and again, they value war above peace. They don't "do" diplomacy, remember.

Ok, besides Afghanistan (which was a direct result of 9/11 and a conflict in which the whole world supports and is helping us in) and Iraq (which was in the plans since the end of the first Gulf War) what are you talking about?

You are right about that US do not used diplomacy because they do not negotiate with terrorist states.

That will ensure that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will never be included in any diplomatic talks and will be an easier target on the power grab in the Middle East.

Syria has the right to defend themselves from any attacks in their borders as a sovereign nation.

But tagging Syria a terrorist state is an easier way to overrule any rights, Syria gets attack Iran will intervene.

If is going to be any attacks it will be before the congress elections, because like ECK said the congress may change hands.

Unless the hands will never change at all. . . something to consider also things can get manipulated just like that. . .

With fair elections, I truly believe the Democrats would take back the House and possibly the Senate. But I think fair elections are far fewer and far between. It's very discouraging.

If the Dems take back congress, the Republicans, most especially BushCo and its lackeys are in trouble. They will be scrambling. If John Conyers takes over the chairmanship of his judicial committee, all kinda hellz gonna break out, investigation-wise. BushCo. knows what time it is and they're getting nervous.

Boy, today's terrorist whatever it was in England sure was attention-grabbing, wasn't it?! And well-timed. Just in time to demonize Lamont and those who elected him. Cheney seems to believe, as does his compatriot in sending others to war Sore Loserman, that al-CIAda must be applauding Lamont's victory. First of all, who cares? And second of all, the people spoke. Get over it, Cheney. And Loserman.

if a war starts with USA / UK / Israel and Iran / Syria then it will go 'nookular' fast.

1. Because Israel will probably use theirs and there's nothing the USA can do about that. (whereas they can over-ride the UK's as they are leased)

2. Because China and Russia won't stand idly by as they rely upon Iranian Oil.

3. Because there's no manpower for any kind of ground invasion and ground forces have been unable to successfully subject the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. And even an 'Air War' won't wash as both countries have a far more sophisticated array of air defenses than Iraq had.

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
if a war starts with USA / UK / Israel and Iran / Syria then it will go 'nookular' fast.

1. Because Israel will probably use theirs and there's nothing the USA can do about that. (whereas they can over-ride the UK's as they are leased)

2. Because China and Russia won't stand idly by as they rely upon Iranian Oil.

3. Because there's no manpower for any kind of ground invasion and ground forces have been unable to successfully subject the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. And even an 'Air War' won't wash as both countries have a far more sophisticated array of air defenses than Iraq had.

It definitely could go nook. And there's absolutely no good reason why it should get to that point. These madmen iin charge of our foreign policy apparatus are literally insane.

They may be more sophisticated but they will still very unlikely posse a challenge to any US or UK strike. And I dont think the US would allow Israel to use nukes but as you said we dont control them. But I would imagine/hope the US would do all it could to stop em from using them. Plus I dont think Israel is dumb enough to use em in the first place.

Where did Israel get their nukes anyway?

Originally posted by SenHeathen
They may be more sophisticated but they will still very unlikely posse a challenge to any US or UK strike. And I dont think the US would allow Israel to use nukes but as you said we dont control them. But I would imagine/hope the US would do all it could to stop em from using them. Plus I dont think Israel is dumb enough to use em in the first place.

Where did Israel get their nukes anyway?

Xcellent question. I think we can all guess, tho.

Cooler heads are at work, as we speak. Maybe George DUHbya doesn't know this yet, but he will. He WILL come around. If he doesn't, on this Lebanon/Israeli deal, I would say too much is in the balance. Too much.

Where did Israel get their nukes anyway?

France, mostly. With some help from the UK. Probably as a reward for their participation in the Suez crisis in 1956.

France helped build Dimona, a nuclear powerplant and reprocessing facility, in the early 1960's. During this time the UK also shipped specialized nuclear processing materials and heavy water to the Israelis.

It's a popular belief that the US gave Israel the bomb, but the military ties between the US and Israel only got close years after the 1967 war. By which point Israel's bomb program was already well underway and probably producing weapons.


[edit on 8/10/06 by xmotex]

Thanx xmotex.

So if this does go nuke, can we blame France?

ok, I'm joking, but it would be nice if the US didnt get blamed.

Well my prediction has expired. I thought that Iran would be bombed around June of this year. Though it looks like it will happen this year. Israel is clearing the path for it now by taking care of the Hezbollah rocket situation ahead of time. This seems as though it may take quite a while, but securing a portion of Lebanon and clearing out many of the rockets will be somewhat effective. It will help prevent a major retaliation after the bombing of Iran. As most of us know, Hezbollah is supplied by Iranian missles and money, much of which is filtered through Syria. This little battle that is happening now is just something to lay the groundwork for the upcoming bombing of Iran.

Thankfully, the whole thing blew up in their faces. I don't support Hezbollah, but I also do not support a regional conflagration pushed by NeoClowns. They seemed to think that this was a clearing of the path toward their desperately wanted showdown with Iran.

Hezbollah actually fought Israel to a draw. As it has gone in iraq, reality has once again barged in upon NeoClown fantasy. It seems they will never accept it.

Attacking Iran at this precarious time is the most idiotic thing the US could do. As I've said before, we still have four months left in this year. Only God knows what pretext these people yet have up their sleeves.

With massive voter discontent in the wake of the Katrina disaster and the ongoing dismal assessment out of Iraq, the Democrats are building real momentum towards re-taking one or both chambers of congress in the upcoming midterm elections.

Republican candidates are running away from Bush right and left as they campaign to hold onto their seats. Ken Mehlman, GOP cheerleader/ringleader in chief is quietly freaking out over what he sees as a political tsunami hitting them soon.

The GOP is clearly in trouble. If the Democrats do retake congress after the midterms, the Bush administration could be in some very, very hot water.

What better way to swing the populace back towards the GOP than war and terrror? We all know the NeoCons have been chomping at the bit to go after regime change in Iran. Maybe now, with the possibility of investigations and possible prosecutions looming, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are ready to use that last option: an invasion of Iran - to retain their grip on power.

Former Senator Gary Hart believes this is very possible:

The October Surprise (42 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, 2006, Israel, George W. Bush, Politics
It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

If the US attacks Iran it will be the biggest Geo-Strategic mistake this nation has ever made.

One more theory being bandied about is the possibility that the administration will trot out news of the capture/death of Osama bin Laden right before the elections.

Whether we have him now, then or not, does not matter. If they could use this guy like that - playing with the fears of the American people - just to get re-elected, is absolutely morally depraved.

Here's some chit-chat on that Osama's dead rumour I mentioned.

Officials doubt bin Laden death report
By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Sep 23, 7:23 PM ET
PARIS - A leaked French intelligence document raises the possibility Osama bin Laden died of typhoid, but President Jacques Chirac said Saturday the report was "in no way whatsoever confirmed" and officials from Kabul to Washington expressed skepticism about its accuracy.

Sorry bout that, folks. I forgot the link:

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AvRSTpezAmGZr2x3wr47NW2s0NUE;_ylu=X3o'___'A3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

[edit on 9/24/06 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 9/24/06 by EastCoastKid]

By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Sep 23, 7:23 PM ET



PARIS - A leaked French intelligence document raises the possibility Osama bin Laden died of typhoid, but President Jacques Chirac said Saturday the report was "in no way whatsoever confirmed" and officials from Kabul to Washington expressed skepticism about its accuracy. news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AvRSTpezAmGZr2x3wr47NW2s0NUE;_ylu=X3o'___'A3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-[/quot e]

I don't know why, but for some reason that web address will not hyperlink.

Maybe this will:

Officials doubt bin Laden death report By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Sep 23, 7:23 PM ET



A leaked French intelligence document raises the possibility Osama bin Laden died of typhoid, but President Jacques Chirac said Saturday the report was "in no way whatsoever confirmed" and officials from Kabul to Washington expressed skepticism about its accuracy.

There have been numerous reports over the years that bin Laden had been killed or that he was dangerously ill, but the al-Qaida leader has periodically released audiotapes appealing to followers and commenting on current news events.

The regional French newspaper l'Est Republicain printed what it described as a copy of a confidential document from the DGSE intelligence service citing an uncorroborated report from a "usually reliable source" who said Saudi secret services were convinced that bin Laden had died.

The document, dated Thursday, was sent to Chirac and other top French officials, the newspaper said.

"This information is in no way whatsoever confirmed," Chirac said when asked about the document. "I have no comment."

Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry offered no details. "I've heard the reports, but I have no information at all. I have no idea," spokesman Mansour al-Turki told The Associated Press.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had "no comment and no knowledge" about the report, while presidential spokesman Blair Jones said the White House could not confirm the report's accuracy. But two U.S. intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said U.S. agencies had no information to suggest bin Laden was dead or dying.

news.yahoo.com...&printer=1;_ylt=ApbI2TwIIIQtrsekbmQvbZ0UewgF;_ylu=X3o'___'A3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0 bWE-

If the US attacks Iran it will be the biggest Geo-Strategic mistake this nation has ever made.

Well it'd be hard to beat Iraq in this respect, but I think Iran would make the cut.

Any airstrike on Iran might set their nuclear research program back a couple of years, but it will assure that the Mullah's stay in power another 25.

The only way to guarantee that Iran does not get the bomb is to invade and occupy the entire country. And that's not a practical option.

The absolute worst policy towards Iran is one that convinces them totally that they need the bomb if they want to be able to deter an attack.

And with all the stupid "get tough" rhetoric driving policy now, that's exactly what we've been doing.

A carrier group is now on its way to the Persian Gulf. Two scenarios being floated:

(a.) Rapid evacuation of troops from Iraq

(b.) Bombing of Iran

Reports claim our agents are inside Iran already scoping out bombing sites.

No reason to doubt that.

I find the first scenario to be highly unlikely. I just can't see Bush making such a drastic change. Evacuation would be a clear acceptance of failure.

In the below article, the writer discusses former Marine and Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's new book and what he believes to be the best course for US/Iranian relations. Here's a hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with war.

October surprise: Trick or treat?
Sean Gonsalves - Cape Cod Times

10.03.06 - What is Karl Rove's "October surprise?" A U.S. attack on Iran?

I don't know. But given the saber-rattling hyperbole of the Bush administration and the Israel lobby, vis-a-vis the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the National Council for Resistance in Iran, it seems like deja vu.

As with Iraq, a policy of regime-change in Iran is being camouflaged as disarmament.

www.workingforchange.com...

:shk:

ECK,

the only reason i could see the US dramatically removing US forces, is if we do strike iran with missles, Iraq, the greenzone and all the US forces there will be priority targets...
missles will fly both ways..


being the missles are hitting IRAQ, and not AMERICA..

bush prolly wants the american forces on ships, out of harms way, allowing the IRAQI's to battle back the iranian force.