[J m HofMarN]

http://english.aljaz...096A02F864D.htm

Check out this story on Al Jazeera about the parallels between the leadup to the invasion of Iraq and the current situation with Iran.

Do you guys think that, against all military knowledge, Bush might commit to an act of official aggression against Iran? He seems to be either preparing for it or just trying to bluff.

[floppydisk]

If he did it once, he'll do it again. The american people only reinforced his bad behavior by re-electing him. He needs to be given a time out. I say he gets sent to an island prison for the rest of his life.

[Kirby]

It's like Bush is trying to take over the Mid-East alphabeticly.

[floppydisk]

Afghanistan: Check, Iraq: Check, Iran:Check, hmmmm..... Kazakhstan, Kuwait...

[Renegade]

There won't be a war with Iran. Period.

[floppydisk]

I'll hold you to that, and bring this topic up again to laugh when it does.

[Renegade]

1) Iran > Iraq militarily and has a military force that is purely islamic; much harder to fight then Saddam's baath party.

2) Too many troops dedicated already in Iraq

3) Iran has never posed a threat to America or Israel

4) Iran is clever.. they never go far enough where they force foreign intervention

[Slade]

True... Though they could reinstate the draft once Iran is feed into the masses mouths as a "threat". I hope for the sake of the world it doesn't.

We have been glaring menacingly at it since January though...

Edit: Redundant redundancy.

This post has been edited by Slade: 21 June 2005 - 11:27 PM

[Renegade]

It's all talk, they want Iran to think they'll use force but everyone knows its impossible and is BS

[Mnesymone]

Dubya would have to be deeply stupid to engage Iran - it'd take a quarter million men and more than twenty billion dollars - also the Coalition formed about his Iraq attack would be negligible if he attempted a repeat performance in Iran... also, he'd piss of the remaining Middle Eastern nations immensely and someone on Bush's staff would have to know that if a coalition was formed in a US-Iran war it would be Middle Eastern support of the Iranians.
Also it would make his security position in Iraq even worse than it is already - not only would he be hard-pressed for manpower, the militant groups would take his involvement in Iran a sign that his attention was off Iraq and become more boisterous. Finally - if the Iranians are developing a nuclear program, (which is the excuse this time) then you'd have to be one crazy bee to try and go up against a nuclear power.

[Lord Melkor]

No, Bush doesn`t have that stupid advisors! This war would be disaster.

[J m HofMarN]

3) Iran has never posed a threat to America or Israel

That sounds EXACTLY like the argument made against war with Iraq.

Anyhow I doubt he'll do it as well, but it looks and feels a lot like the lead up to Iraq. I mean he is technicly already commencing hostilities by funding anti-Iranian terrorists and flying into Iranian airspace.

Bush is in the perfect position to attack Iran strategicly, but he dosn't have the manpower. Public support he could MAYBE get. Sad to say but I think a good slice of the population would be ignorant enough to support a war against Iran.

However it's clear to see what Bush is going for. Once he takes Iran he'll control Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If he builds hotels on all of these, or even just puts up enough houses, he would have a stranglehold on the other side of the board. There's been a great deal of talk about Bin Laden trying to blow up one of Bush's railroads but we all know that railroads are fairly useless unless you own all four of them.

[Slade]

Yeah, and you know he won't own any of the electric companies in those countries.

He's not going to get a war without a draft, and that's going to totally enrage at least half of the population of the US. Of course, it'll be on his second term, and since the Republicans are in power, he wouldn't be impeached or have to worry about his public opinion, just up his bodyguards.

If it happens, there will be hell to pay, to be sure.

[Renegade]

That sounds EXACTLY like the argument made against war with Iraq.

Anyhow I doubt he'll do it as well, but it looks and feels a lot like the lead up to Iraq. I mean he is technicly already commencing hostilities by funding anti-Iranian terrorists and flying into Iranian airspace.

Bush is in the perfect position to attack Iran strategicly, but he dosn't have the  manpower. Public support he could MAYBE get. Sad to say but I think a good slice of the population would be ignorant enough to support a war against Iran.

However it's clear to see what Bush is going for. Once he takes Iran he'll control Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If he builds hotels on all of these, or even just puts up enough houses, he would have a stranglehold on the other side of the board. There's been a great deal of talk about Bin Laden trying to blow up one of Bush's railroads but we all know that railroads are fairly useless unless you own  all four of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya but Iraq has posed a threat to Israel... Iran never has. Iraq has fought aggressive wars in the past 20 years... Iran hasn't. The situations are just totally different and a war with Iran won't happen PERIOD.

[Kirby]

I do agree, with renagade here, there won't be any war in Iran. But the reasons are because there isn't enough time for another unwanted war.

The draft would be the straw that finaly breaks the tax payer's backs. If that is EVER instetuded agian for something short of WWIII then who ever is in office will have hell to pay.