President Bush opens options for use of force on Iran!

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Thorn
If you think everything is ok with Iran and they love us and want to snuggle with us, then why don't you go wear a Proud to be an American, or GO USA shirt in Tehran, see how far you get before....... well I won't even say what they'd do to you, its above NC-17 if this was on TV.

I wonder if wearing a T-shirt that says " I love Islam" in the heart of Texas would have any negative effect.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Dauphin


One option is unconditional surrender. I'm pretty sure that its not on Bush's options table.

[mrmitchell]

When are we going to get a President that doesn't have a major boner for war?

[Tattila the Hun]

I should think it's too early to go surgical on them... I mean, they can't make a nuke in a week. If they start now, Bush will be out of office by the time they have a working prototype. You people have satellites and stuff, you can detect them in time to stop a nuke, if they really go for it. If they make electricity... Good for them.

[GePap]

Yeah, just like all options were on the table with regards to NK. Wait, I remember Bush saying we would NEVER allow NK to have nukes. Then the North Koreans got seevral pounds of Plutonium out of secure and monitored storage and now who knows were it is.

Of course this was the same admin. that gave us the unqualified success in Iraq....... And has finally crushed the Taliban and made Afghanistan safe after 4 years....

The US will go at it utterly alone if it decides to attack Iran, since it has 0 justification whatsoever for any military straike against Iran's nuclear facilities unless authorized by the Sec. Council and that won't happen.

Besides, airstrikes would fail, in the sense of NOT stopping Iran, who would continue on its merry way, with the added ability to blame everything on the uS. I mean, iof the US likes the current president of Iran so much, we could make him stronger internally in ways less expensive than dropping bombs, but hey, if that is what rock's Bush's boat.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Making things easier, Iranians will put up much less resistance than the Iraqis have.

I seem to remember your ilk proclaiming that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms as liberators and that resistance would be minimal and short.

You know very little about the Iranians and what they're attitudes would be towards a U.S. invasion. Considering the horrible anti-American sentiment our past meddling conjured up there, any attempt at aggression will be met by very fierce resistance. And Iran is considerably larger than Iraq.

[GePap]

Invading Iran is not an option, not after the problems we have had in Iraq, and that is in a country were the great majority of the population is putting up no real resistance. Imagine invading a country 3 times as big (size and population) in which a resistance would have a much higher pool of support than the 25-30% it has in iraq (at least 50% in Iran).

When Bush speaks of force, he probably means air attacks. Unfortunately most Iranians support the countries nuclear ambitions and attacking Iran would simply discredit anti-government forces in Iran. But given the glaring and obvious lack of understading by the guys making our FP, can't say I am surprised.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Iran is considerably larger than Iraq.

And far more mountainous.

[Wiglaf]

No Imran, the arms were intercepted at the border. I cannot believe how you are whitewashing the Iranian participation in the Iraq insurgency

Furthermore I have reason to believe the mullahs in Iran are not too popular down there; and if we play our cards right, becuase Iran has a crap military, there will not be need for such a massive deployment of troops.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by GePap
Invading Iran is not an option, not after the problems we have had in Iraq, and that is in a country were the great majority of the population is putting up no real resistance. Imagine invading a country 3 times as big (size and population) in which a resistance would have a much higher pool of support than the 25-30% it has in iraq (at least 50% in Iran).

When Bush speaks of force, he probably means air attacks. Unfortunately most Iranians support the countries nuclear ambitions and attacking Iran would simply discredit anti-government forces in Iran. But given the glaring and obvious lack of understading by the guys making our FP, can't say I am surprised.

Yep, I think so.

IMHO an invasion won´t be an option for Bush.
It probably wouldn´t get the public support needed (which AFAIK has dropped steadily after the steady stream of filled bodybags returning from Iraq and other things like the missing WMDs in Iraq)
and it would be very questionable if the congress releases the Budget for an Invasion of Iran, after the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by far exceeded any Budget-Projections Bush made

So there would be airstrikes as the only option.

[Chemical Ollie]

Nukes are not used to hurt your enemies, but to prevent them from attacking you. Haven't you Yanks learnt that yet? Iran is no threat, except to the non-islamistic parts of their own population.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the arms were intercepted at the border

Which according to your article officials "suspect as coming from Iran", if they were obviously from Iran, why the 'suspect', why not come out and say it? Furthermore, as other quotes show, any arms coming across probably aren't from Iran, but from other groups.

Why would Iran back Sunnis against Shi'ites? When Iran is a Shi'ite country? Every person in the article is totally confused by that, which means, it ain't from Iran.

Only the most braindead believe that Iran is helping the Sunni rebellion.

[Ted Striker]

HERE WE GO AGAIN. I SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN AND HERE WE GO.


PRESIDENT BUSH IS THE STUPIDEST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. WHAT ****ING *******.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the arms were intercepted at the border

Which according to your article officials "suspect as coming from Iran", if they were obviously from Iran, why the 'suspect', why not come out and say it? Furthermore, as other quotes show, any arms coming across probably aren't from Iran, but from other groups.

Why would Iran back Sunnis against Shi'ites? When Iran is a Shi'ite country? Every person in the article is totally confused by that, which means, it ain't from Iran.

Only the most braindead believe that Iran is helping the Sunni rebellion.

If Iraq became a state it could oppose Iran. Shi'ites in Iran want the turmoil.

These bombs were probably aimed at US troops and those helping the new government.

You can say that is "brain-dead" all you want, but I'd say you are trying to hold the untenable position that weapons and high-grade explosives seized from the Iran-Iraq border are somehow not from Iran.

[Mr. Harley]

Uh, guys, before I go to bed. The Shia have their own militias, that have been stepping up activity after the various massacres of fighting age Shia males in mixed areas by Sunni insurgents. Maybe, just maybe, Iran is helping arm them in the hope that once the US pulls out that a Civil War will create another Shia theocracy. Anotherwise, the Iranians are helping creating their own Ulster paras(militaries), to borrow from another conflict, which will be able to match the Sunnis atrocity for atrocity. Yippee, you too can have four centuries of religious conflict and atrocities.