| |||||||
| World Affairs Politics, government, leadership, elections, global issues, environmental issues, economics, domestic policy, foreign policy, social change, human rights, civil liberty, healthcare, education, news, history, space exploration |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-08-2009, 03:44 PM
| #1 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 653
 |  US invasion of Iran
What do you think of this article? Possibly US may invade Iran soon? Wag The Dog, Again by Philip Giraldi -- Antiwar.com |
|      |
|
09-08-2009, 08:06 PM
| #3 (permalink) | |
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,184
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
09-08-2009, 08:25 PM
| #4 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Eastern Long Island, USA
Posts: 1,047
|
These are very logical arguments based on an objective world view. What about the subjective? A minister predicted a while ago that if Bush was elected for a second term, US would go to war against Iran. That frightened me, so I decided that it would not happen and focused on things that I wanted rather than on things that I don't want.... |
|
| |
|
09-08-2009, 08:35 PM
| #5 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 727
| Quote:
As Brutha said, it is a war that cannot be won. If the goal is political, it is inherently counter-productive. If the goal is economic, the cost of war would outweigh the benefits. | |
|
| |
|
09-08-2009, 10:28 PM
| #7 (permalink) |
| Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 19
|
The US doesn't need to invade Iran. All they need to do is let the Israelis go and do their "surgical strikes" on Iran's nuclear facilities. Then, as far as the two governments are concerned, the big problem is solved. Regime change in Iran can come later. Of course, imposing your will on another country often has unintended consequences... the term "glass parking lot" comes to mind on this occasion. People get the government they deserve, so let the Iranian people sort it out before it all escalates into something with a global flavour. |
|
| |
|
09-09-2009, 12:46 AM
| #8 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 490
| Quote:
Obama got elected in 2008 with a healthy majority even though he has always been pro-war. What makes you think people will stop ignoring his stance on war next election? | |
|
| |
|
09-09-2009, 06:34 PM
| #11 (permalink) | |
| Family Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,756
| Quote:
When you meet people from different countries, you realize most of people are good, no matter the country. Obama seems one of them. There are a few screwballs, very few, in every country that cause the planetary mess we have. Those are the ones who go to the headlines. | |
|
| |
|
09-10-2009, 01:02 AM
| #12 (permalink) | ||
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 8,749
 | Quote:
Quote:
There practically no way for Obama to win over the typical conservative who watches fox. Even when Obama does preventive detention and wars they will still prefer a Republican. The way Obama does things at the moment you will have a third party canditate on the left of him that gets a bunch of votes. Al Gore lost to Bush partly because Nader got votes on the left. I think we also agree here that the US economy won't magically turn well in 2010 or in 2011. While blaming everything on Bush works at the moment in the media, it won't work anymore in 2011. Explaining to the American public why the US is still in Iraq also won't be easy at the next election either. | ||
|
| |
|
09-10-2009, 01:02 AM
| #13 (permalink) | ||
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 8,749
| Quote:
Quote:
There practically no way for Obama to win over the typical conservative who watches fox. Even when Obama does preventive detention and wars they will still prefer a Republican. The way Obama does things at the moment you will have a third party canditate on the left of him that gets a bunch of votes. Al Gore lost to Bush partly because Nader got votes on the left. I think we also agree here that the US economy won't magically turn well in 2010 or in 2011. While blaming everything on Bush works at the moment in the media, it won't work anymore in 2011. Explaining to the American public why the US is still in Iraq also won't be easy at the next election either. | ||
|
| |
|
09-10-2009, 05:03 AM
| #14 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 490
| Quote:
You can never defeat the idea of terrorism, or destroy all terrorists. This is why we could never win in Vietnam, and why we can't win in Iraq or Iran. The Iraq war succeeded in destroying the country's government, but the one we have put in its place is, if anything, worse than the regime under Saddam. The country is unstable, its infrastructure in ruins, and the idea of terrorism is as strong as ever. | |
|
| |
|
09-28-2009, 01:15 PM
| #17 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 653
|
I found this Video: YouTube - John Bolton: Israel will attack Iran by end of 2009 |
|
| |
|
09-28-2009, 02:14 PM
| #18 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,756
|
Wars create debt, debt leads to inflation, social unrest and economical crisis. Russian communist revolution, chinese revolution and frence revolution, had a precedent of funding war, debt and economic crisis. Countries that fund wars are at risk of suffering revolutions. |
|
| |
|
09-29-2009, 04:49 AM
| #19 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oblong, Illinois
Posts: 3,335
|
I do not believe the US will attack Iran. It is not a war that would achieve national goals, the US does not have the military strength to successfully wage a war against Iran and the American people will not support yet another theater of war. There may be sanctions from the world in which the US would play a role and a blockade in which US naval forces could play a major role. I think all of the above options are futile. I believe Israel would wish to attack Iran but is aware that doing so will provoke a storm in the area while only deterring the production of nuclear weapons by a maximum of eighteen months. A negative side effect of any attack on Iran would be to shore up the current regime there and garner support for said regime. The people of Iran would react to a strike anywhere in the country as a strike against themselves personally and make any kind of peace more difficult and distant. Killing people and braking things is generally a bad idea and in this case will only make the situation much more difficult. |
|
| |
|
09-29-2009, 11:29 PM
| #20 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,756
|
The time when countries and companies had interests aligned is long gone. Iran war would bring money to companies and economic ruin for US citizens. Companies make profit, US citizens die as slave soldiers (unable to go home when they want). |
|
| |
|
09-30-2009, 04:23 AM
| #21 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 464
| Quote:
We learned nothing from Vietnam. We can never again assume the mighty US armed forces can conquer a smaller country with ease. It is not that simple. We cannot be cavallier about committing the lives of our young men and women to death and destruction. Now Afghanistan is heating up and Obama is under pressure to send more troops there. To attack Iran - ridiculous. We've barely enough troops as it is. And I will be very, very sceptical about any claims that we must attack because there is an "imminent threat". What's even more infuriating is that while we're enmeshed in an 8-year war in 2 countries, we still haven't got the main perpetrator, Osama Bin Laden. I think we tried to kill a mosquito with tanks and bombs, and he's still floating around out there, at least there's no proof he's dead. Bush seemed peculiarly unconcerned about capturing the thug behind the 9/11 attack, and obssessed about taking down Hussein, who had nothing to do with it. Now we are stuck in Iraq for who knows how long? Does anyone see an "End In Sight" to this ?? | |
|
| |
|
09-30-2009, 06:03 AM
| #22 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,756
|
Nikolai II decided to go to war, and the high military spending and scarcity of supplies, higher taxes to have enough funds, tightened the pockets of a society already in crisis, before revolution in Russia. In China, the nationalist regime sank chinese into crisis and it imposed a heavy load on citizens to pay for war. When WWII was over, it was too late and chinese revolution took place. In 1774 France had suffered losses caused by Louis XIV. Poor administration of Luis XV and the losses of french war in India (1754-1763) and the raise of debt caused by the US war of independence (1775-1783) and a financial crisis, led to revolution in France. In all cases, the statu quo was put down. So if US goes to war, it may be likely that it ends having a revolution in a few years that may put down bankers and probably US may break apart in independent countries like USSR did. My guess is that supporters of war in Iran may not have an inconvenience about repeating history. Last edited by ar81; 09-30-2009 at 06:17 AM. |
|
| |
|
10-04-2009, 02:04 AM
| #23 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Singapore
Posts: 437
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
10-08-2009, 12:05 AM
| #24 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Schuylerville, New York
Posts: 74
| President Obama is NOT pro-war Quote:
Have you ever read President Obama's 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq? He said, "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." It is a remarkable speech. Take a few minutes and read the entire speech. Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | |
|
| |
|
10-08-2009, 11:31 AM
| #25 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 491
| Quote:
If I were to be cynical, I'd say it was politically expedient to speak out against the Iraq War. Perhaps it made little difference at the time but later in his career it was a mark in his favor. In regard to Iran, I don't think he ever said that he'd taken the prospect of fighting them off the table. Consider also that there are powerful people with influence over Washington, people who would not take lightly to Iran's threat to stop accepting US dollars for their oil. You'll note it was around the time they made that threat when all this talk of war with Iran popped into the mainstream media. Maybe Obama doesn't want to go to war. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he doesn't. But he's one man against many. However, while it would be a hard fought victory, I think it's unlikely the US would strike Iran. This isn't like Iraq. There are fewer who would be willing to finance this war, and it would be much harder to win public support. | |
|
| |
|
| Bookmarks |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Peaceful Iran | Dan.Linehan | World Affairs | 37 | 09-05-2008 06:15 PM |
| US V's IRAN soon ? | mark7 | World Affairs | 3 | 08-31-2008 07:54 PM |
| The British Invasion | Aylana | General & Introductions | 2 | 01-14-2008 05:44 AM |
| What girl from Iran can do? | Mayo | Business & Financial | 6 | 05-07-2007 12:14 AM |
| Invasion of the Purple Tribbles? | Andreas | Steve Pavlina | 5 | 11-06-2006 12:07 AM |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11 AM.