Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bush says Iran is next!

ska invita

ska invita

back on the other side
Iraq will topple next, says Bush

" He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran’s main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods."

In the run up to the Iraq invasion I and others were saying on these boards that Iran would be next, and sho nuff...

Just to remind you, if you look on a map of iran and its borders, every country or waterway now has US military bases (afghanistan and Iraq the latest conquests, the Persian Gulf houses most of the US navy). Hell, if they get Iran it''l be three in a row!

Iran is surrounded! Cmout with ya hands up!


Aside from any future arguments about legality or ends justifying means, it is important to remember that Iran is a true model of a country going about reform and cultural change through gentle outside pressure, and internal progression. The process isnt the fastest, but is genuine. To interfere with this is nothing but imperialism...
 
niksativa said:
Iraq will topple next, says Bush

" He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran’s main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods."

In the run up to the Iraq invasion I and others were saying on these boards that Iran would be next, and sho nuff...

Just to remind you, if you look on a map of iran and its borders, every country or waterway now has US military bases (afghanistan and Iraq the latest conquests, the Persian Gulf houses most of the US navy). Hell, if they get Iran it''l be three in a row!

Iran is surrounded! Cmout with ya hands up!


Aside from any future arguments about legality or ends justifying means, it is important to remember that Iran is a true model of a country going about reform and cultural change through gentle outside pressure, and internal progression. The process isnt the fastest, but is genuine. To interfere with this is nothing but imperialism...
Click to expand...

Iran is an area where both the EU and the US can probably come to some agreement. The EU doesn't want to see a nuclear armed Iran anymore than the US. I think we can all come to some consensus on how to deal with Iran. It might be economic sanctions (applied by the EU) or at some point a military operation to knock out nuclear production facilities (applied by the US)
 
niksativa said:
.....side from any future arguments about legality or ends justifying means, it is important to remember that Iran is a true model of a country going about reform and cultural change through gentle outside pressure, and internal progression. The process isnt the fastest, but is genuine. To interfere with this is nothing but imperialism...
Click to expand...

Can you name one reform in real terms, pushed through by Khatami? Not likely to happen either now the reformists have been kicked out in a rigged election.

Outside pressure may be the reason for the latest directive banning torture in prison, but such laws have been passed before and they never seem to make the slightest bit of difference.

Im not saying an Iraqi style invasion would be a good idea, just that i see very little evidence of progression.
 
the Iranian nuclear facility cannot be removed without also removing the israeli nuclear facility.

we can clearly see which country poses the greater threat to middle-eastern security, and *clue* it's not Iran.
 
I must admit that at the political level, little appears to have changed, however from my limited understanding Iran is changing culturaly, and cultural change is grass roots/ bottom up change.

This cultural change comes from an "atmosphere" of increasing freedom of speech and expression. No doubt a clued up poster will be able to find Amnesty International citations of torture and repression, but it seems to me that the reason Europe has a policy of attempted intergration of Iran is because of the atmosphere on the ground, which shows the buds of spontaneous public reclaiming the of political middle ground.

In the article from The Times the description of " Iran’s “hugely dissatisfied” population"" is a correct one, and in effect could lead to a velvet revolution of sorts. European plans hinge on bringing Iran into the fold, and thereby putting pressure on the creaking mechanics of repressive goverment; the outcome of which would be an organic political sea-change.

The most dangerous thing about the new US ploicy is that the "senior official" claims that: "The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq" to achieve a regime change in Iran, however I for one am under the impression that the US is incapable of using anything other than miltary force/deadly sanctions/funding militia: the bottom line is no military force doesnt mean no loss of innocent life.
 
Abezaid won't be going to Tehran. The Yanks don't have a cat in hells chance of managing a regime change in Syria let alone Iran. The US land army is already overstretched in Iraq, and Iraq is far from over. Iraq was a basket case when we invaded; Iran isn't. With Mecca shakey they can't afford another disasterous bold stroke.

A punative strike on the other hand is well within their power, that's is what Dubya is blustering about with an eye on the election.
 
Irans position is now probably stronger than it was pre-war. The US has removed its main regional rival and Iraqs large (and newly empowered) shia population gives Iran a major 'in' on affairs within the country.
And as oi2002 points out - the US can no way launch another war right now. It would be poiltcally, diplomatically disastorus and tie the US military down to fighting an ferocious anti-yank unsurgency accross Iran as well as Iraq (and Iran is twice the size of Iraq). Never mind the wider effects in places like Saudi.

A couple of air strikes is plausible - but would achive very very little and the polticial consequences - both regionally and internationally - would mitigate very strongly against it.

This is Bush blowing it out of his arse in order to sound tough to his electrolate and try and out pressure on the Iranians.

Also western attempts to boost reformist movements within Iran are counter productive - the last thing the Iranian progressives want is to associated with the great satan.
 
oi2002 said:
Abezaid won't be going to Tehran. The Yanks don't have a cat in hells chance of managing a regime change in Syria let alone Iran. The US land army is already overstretched in Iraq, and Iraq is far from over. Iraq was a basket case when we invaded; Iran isn't. With Mecca shakey they can't afford another disasterous bold stroke.

A punative strike on the other hand is well within their power, that's is what Dubya is blustering about with an eye on the election.
Click to expand...

True, but don't overestimate the competence or rationality of Team Chimp.

Maybe they really are stupid enough to pull a stunt like this . . .

And if it does happen - Victory to Iran.
 
Hopefully there well be a revolution if Britain is involved in this war. I myself will be ready to storm Downing street.
 
Janes Intelligence Digest is going on the idea that Israel could do a "surgical strike" on the nuclear facilities - extract.

In that event the US would protest that it was nothing to do with them and the rest of the world would say, as one, "pull the other one, mate, it's got bells on".

Oddly, the existence of the Janes article itself undermines the proxy strategy.
 
Rocket Romano said:
Saudi Arabia....one day, I hope
Click to expand...
Well Saudi Arabia is certainly far more in need of reform than Iran. Strange then that it isn't on Bush's hitlist, not.
 
niksativa said:
Good article showing Iran's quiet cultural revolution
Click to expand...

thats a good article overall, but i think it falls down in identifying prostitution as part of a cultural youth revolution. In some ways that might be accurate, in as much as it relates to heroin and the situation that gets young people get into it.

But in many cases 'sex-slave' would be a more appropriate term than prostitute, which implies an element of free-will. Theres no mention of the massive industry in abduction and export of young girls, involving the authorities on nearly/all levels. And theres nothing new in that, it even says as much in the Koran.
 
TBH this is just desperate clutching at straws by Dubya who's seeing his popularity wane in the polls. He's run out of countries to invade. He can't invade North Korea because there's absolutely no case for an invasion: they don't pose a threat even to their neighbour. He can't invade Iran because there is simply no reason to. Other than that over a decade ago when Raygun was in charge the Iranians held some Americans hostage.

There's no way Bush would get any support from the international community to intervene in Iran because, er, Iran poses absolutely no threat to anyone, including Iraq.

It's nothing more than right wing pre-election posturing to appeal to wavering voters that there's still a threat somewhere that a only chickenhawk president could put right.
 
How the hell did Bush manage to get US bases into Azerbaijan and Armenia? I'm amazed, did they actually agree to "temporary" (i.e. permanent) american military presence before the invasion of Afghanistan?
 
Loki said:
There's no way Bush would get any support from the international community to intervene in Iran...
Click to expand...

I also suspect - or hope - he'd lack support somewhere he cares about (and can locate on a map):

Prez: "This is your Commander in Chief. I want you to invade Iran."
Joint Chiefs of Staff: "This is your armed forces. Fuck off. No way."

The odd cruise missile, or an Israeli proxy operation, on the other hand... in October...

The CIA said:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 20,937,348 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 12,434,810 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 912,569 (2004 est.)
Click to expand...

And... Iran has lots of crinkly bits, as Slartibartfast would put it if he existed. Excellent for guerrilla defence. Compare Iraq and, to its East, the Western part of Iran, linked below:

Sat image Iraq & Iran (110k)


This one is better but 256k...
 
Flavour said:
How the hell did Bush manage to get US bases into Azerbaijan and Armenia? I'm amazed, did they actually agree to "temporary" (i.e. permanent) american military presence before the invasion of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
Answer: (1) Russia needed the money (2) Afghanistan has been a thorn in Russia's wounded pride ever since they failed to invade it themselves.
 
Of course this is just a small part of the American plan for the new century that was put together by the right wing while Clinton was still in power. Imperialism rides forth in the seach for secure supplies of oil now that Saudi Arabia may not seem all that stable.

Since before WW2 America has been working on it's imperialist strategy by economic means backed up with force. The right wing have just been honing thier strategy 9/11 has made it easier for them to put this into practice.

KeeperofDragons
 
And when is el presidente planning on this action? He's an imbecile, he'll be gone in 4 months.
 
Iran has always been part of the grand game in the middle east.

The administration isnt just making noise for the sake of it.

Many have been predicting and anticipating this next phase

Good article from 2003 into US plans for Iran
(interestingly enough this article predicts the use of The Reactor at Bushehr as the focal point for US intervention - uncannily coinciding with the original statement made by Bush senior advisor in yesterdays Times

the axis of evil speach has Iran and Iraq side by side in the axis of evil shopping list. North Korea is a long way off, but ten years down the line who knows if we wont be having a special China section on these boards...
 
iran may be on their wish list but they got fuck all chance of realising it.

the PNAC agenda, if not dead, is certianly in critical condition following the botched occupation of Iraq. (essentially stiopped by a few thousand Iraqis with AK47s in Fallujah).
the US is NOT a military dictatorship and bush would require the support of a large chunk of the US establishment, the media and the population to even think about attacking Iran - and that would be nigh on impossible to achive in the present circumstances.

IF they end up with a secure, pro US Iraq, and IF Suadi settles down and IF bush wins a second term and IF they could come up with a far more convincing 'lets attack iran' argument than the one used against Iraq then they might be able to pull it off. But they'll be none of uncle sams tanks in tehran for the forseeable.

Iran knows this. Bush knows this.
 
The assumption that Putin will back down in a crisis on his own border could be a serious miscalculation. If U.S. hawks insist on victory, and escalate, events could spin out of control...(from the 2003 article above)
Click to expand...

Putin would have Dubya's nads for ear rings. Dubya may not be the brightest chimp in the troop but Iraq has demonstrated the limits of US millitary power. With former Centcom commanders like Zinni and Hoar willing to point at the idiocy of the Iraqi invasion, there are limits to what the Brass will do. The Neo-Con dreaming is ending and we are back in the era of hard nosed Real Politik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bingoman
Iran Pakistan tensions
Replies
5
Views
284
Bingoman
Bingoman
Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
2 3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
7K
teqniq
teqniq
bcuster
AT&T says hackers stole records of nearly all cellular customers' calls and texts
2 3
Replies
78
Views
2K
moochedit
moochedit
eoin_k
WTF is going on in Iran?
Replies
18
Views
2K
likesfish
likesfish
krtek a houby
JD Vance's time is up
2 3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
6K
VivaE
VivaE
Back
Top Bottom