Despite repeated denials from the White House and Gates, there is increasing evidence that America is gearing up for air strikes against Iran. Whether they occur in 2007 or 2008, it's beginning to look as though the situation in the Middle East may escalate even further. What is your response to Ewen MacKaskill's article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html
2007-02-10 17:49:12 · 18 answers · asked by Sailinlove 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's an interesting article, and though I feel that Iran isn't attacked while Bush is in office, it is likely that his successor will have too. It is like Mr. Gates said, there may be no plans for an inevitable strike, but our military is gearing up for a conflict. Unless someone is an America hating anti-semmite who craves nuclear holocaust, they know that this Hitler wannabe in Iran must be taken care of.
Unlike the situation with Iraq, most politicians along with American citizens know that the Iranian threat is a serious one. Plus, Bush and his cabinent realize (whether they admit it or not) that the dismantiling of Saddam's regime has disrupted the power balance in the Middle East. While Saddam was a terrible, terrible person, he was a secular tyrant. The Iranian president is a bonafide radical and would love to kill every Jew on the planet and have all women wear burkhas.
It is true what you are saying, evidence is mounting and showing that this looming conflict has become but inevitable. One way or the other, the military must use air-power rather than men on the ground. The United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Even if our country won't attack, Iran will surely fall as Israel is not interested in being leveled by a fanatic enemy.
While Mr. Cannistraro has stated that no decision has been made this may change very soon. The true tragedy is that many of Iran's young people aren't radicalized and honestly despise their leader (his name is hard to pronounce and nearly impossible for me to spell.)
Regardless of what another person stated about Russia, China, and Iran making a strong alliance, they have nothing on the United States. Without us and aid, people in all of these nations would starve. In addition, our weaponry is far more advanced and more plentiful than all of theirs combined. The U.S. can defeat all of the world's other nations at once. Hopefully, events will never require such action, but it is a fact, though the general public and other nations are kept in the dark in regard to much of our weaponry and capabilities. End of the story.
Hopefully this is worthy of a best answer! I could use one!
2007-02-10 18:45:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't like Bush, I never have. He is his daddy's puppet. Gotta make up for the embarrassment some how!!! I think Bush gives us and Congress the finger every time he makes a decision. He hasn't learned to stop and THINK before he does anything. The problem with most of our Presidents (Rep and Dem) is that the election of the President is no longer a by the people for the people election. We proved that when Bush was put into office even though Gore got the popular vote....go figure!!! The thing about it is, we will never be happy with any president. Most people don't get it, there really are things you have to be willing to give up in order to get what you really want. You know who I'd cast a vote for? Anyone that would stand up there and honestly say to me. "I don't know for sure what I'm going to do. I will do my best to do what's best for OUR country. I will focus on the needs of our country, instead of worrying about issues outside of our country. When and if our country is threatened I will listen to ALL of my advisors and make the best decision I can. Its going to be a long hard road, and some of you may not like me in the end, but I will do the best I can for our country to make it a strong country with a reason to be proud again." That is the person who gets my vote. Good job on reporting Who. Its not that he disagreed with you, its that he made hate/racist (commy) threats directed straight at you. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and making such hate remarks. Maybe Who isn't as secure in his opinion of Bush as what he thinks he is! He needs to learn to not take "questioning G Dubyah" as such a personal attack and find a way to intelligently and calmly express his opinion. Thank you for supporting the proper conduct in these forums by reporting those who seem to forget the rules.
2016-05-25 09:30:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we've got the makings of a constitutional crisis here. Congress is clearly opposed to military action against Iran.
Remember that Congress has the exclusive right to declare war. W even went to them to "authorize" the Iraq invasion - though it wasn't a formal declaration.
Any action contemplated against Iran is INDEPENDENT of the Iraq action - independently foolhardy, independently irresponsible, independently insane.
If Bush moves against Iran, then it's clearly time for Congress to pull out the stops and impeach both him and Cheney for contempt of the constitution.
2007-02-10 19:35:09 · answer #3 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's all part of a plan to control the worlds oil through military force. Look at a map Iran is the last piece of the puzzle needed to gain complete control of the worlds oil supply. Don't let the chaos in Iraq fool you...that is just the way they want it. It is part of their "rule through chaos" theory in the much celebrated "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document published in Sept 2000 by the Project for a New American Century...you can download it at their web site (google PNAC).
Also watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDQJIBsn6z8
Oh and just to make sure they make their point to the Russians and Chinese Bush will use nukes in Iran...lots of them. They think this will somehow intimidate Russia and China from challenging their (the NeoCons loonies) power.
I think it will provoke an all out Russian/China response!!!
2007-02-10 18:27:36 · answer #4 · answered by Perry L 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
YES,iran is stronger than america can attack to it.
america cant control iraq afghanistan.
how attack to iran?
russia support iran.china support iran.
iran have alot of soldiers that defence iran in 8years war against iraq that all of eu countries and america support it.
2007-02-12 17:08:26 · answer #5 · answered by margemoosh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it, in spite of the fact that Iran has been at war with the US since the Carter Administration.
The big question is how much money in tributes will the next president (with full support of the new Congress) pay to keep Iran from attacking the US or nuking Tel Aviv?
2007-02-10 17:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Israel want to keep occupying land that was never part of Israel. The Israeli policy is to take out any military power that oppose the Israeli occupation policy. The Israeli lobby for years worked on Iraq war and now they want the USA to attack Iran. If you do not know that by now you are kept in the dark by Israeli lobby propaganda.
2007-02-10 18:11:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
its 2am so i dont want to get into the strategic connections between Iran + China and Iran + Russia...
Russia + Iran have a very strong alliance.
Russia has sold Iran many missles and nuclear supplies.. incleading several hundred planes and lasar guided missles.
Both Russia and China have provided Iran with missles that can reach 1,000-2,000km... enough to reach israel.
Iran is also the main supplier of oil to both China + Russia...
To attack Iran would be suicide, and Bush knows it, obviously.
If we attack Iran, Russia + China will be forced, if not willing to come to Irans aid.
However, Iran cannot attack Israel because #1, they know israel can strike back harder, and will.
but also, because Iran will likely get little/no more then usual aid from Russia + China, because Iran took the initiative to attack first by using WMD's which are illegal to use and punishable by the Geneva Conventions under war-crimes.
also, the reason Iran is helping aid the terrorists is because they want the democracy in Iraq to fail.
they know what kind of support the west will get from other middle eastern countries to change once they see the success iraq's democracy is... just like what happened when Gorbachev allowed a state in the Soviet Union win its revolution and try to declare independence.
Poland or Hungry or w/e it was launched a successful revolution in the Soviet Union and other states saw how great it was, and they started to start their own revolutions too..
thats one of the reasons the USSR is now just Russia.
Iran is starting to see this now in his own country. The younger generation of college scholars is beginning a revolution in Iran, calling for a change of governments. This has been forcefully controlled by the Iranian military.
If Iran attacks Israel, he knows that America will react harshly, possibly with their own nuclear weapons if neccessary.
The Iranian president is terrified of possible westernization of his own country, and he knows thats exactly what will happen to his own country if he does in fact attack Israel.
The president of Iran has painted themselves to be victims, and he has painted himself to be a savior. He has painted Israel + the US to be enemies. He mixes up things we say to make people scarred of the US + Israel. After Bush announces that he is going to start being stricter with Irans influence in Iraq, and he is going to stop the chain of supplys coming from Iran to Iraq... the Iranian president announces, acting as though Bush just said hes going to use nuclear bombs on Iran if they dont stop doing something that they arent, that he will attack the US back with great force if the US attacks Iran and bombs Irans people.
He tells his people that America is gearing up to use nuclear bombs on Iran...
when that isnt even true.
He tells his people this so that he can build up his nuclear facilities and the U.N. and his people will think that hes just trying to defend himself...
It would be very unwise for the US to attack Iran.. it doesnt even make sense. Iran portrays these ideas through the Tehran-based, government-owned, media outlet "Al-Jazeera"....
im just wondering why the Democrats are falling for this scheme.. calling their own president a tyrant and the Iranian President a victim.
The Iranian President is trying to brainwash his people to not question him and support him, as all dictators do.
But it blows my mind that he is also getting supporters from the Capitalist country of America.
Speaks volumes, to me, about the intelligence most Americans have about politics...
To blame Bush for the excalation of "trouble" in the middle east is irrational and pretty treasonous. Your putting yourself right next to the same brainwashed people who are strapping bombs to themselves and killing american soldiers in Iraq. They too were led to believe that the liberating, american troops were intruders.
When will America smarten up? thats the question i ask.
Between 1996-2002, the U.N. and America began air strikes on Iraqi nuclear facilities to punish saddam for breaking sanctions...
its standard proceedure.
if a country declines to obide by sanctions/demands the U.N. has made. The U.N. has the right to first warn of the attacks, and then if there is no cooperation, solve the problem themselves by destroying the facilities that violate U.N. sanctions/demands.
The only thing the UN will bomb is chemical facilities and/or military bases.
they will not bomb "presidential areas" because that will violate Geneva Conventions and UN protocol..
and they will not bomb civilians...
an airstrike is not a call to war, its a punishment for broken sanctions and/or UN demands...
and it is also warned of before hand.
2007-02-10 18:26:54 · answer #8 · answered by Corey 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The attack on Iran will be staged soon when no action is being made to stop the nuclear arms build-up.
2007-02-10 17:52:24 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Iran WILL be militarily attacked by the US before the President's term expires. Good luck President Hillary, McCain whoever...
2007-02-10 18:11:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋