2007-09-13 04:00:02 · 17 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411396419&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
2007-09-13 04:00:13 · update #1
Please FASTEN your seat belts. Thanks
2007-09-13 04:00:37 · update #2
That would be exceedingly foolish and I don't think it will happen.
Sabre-rattling consists of the ONLY form of diplomacy Bushco understands (or is willing to use), and certainly, with the lack of open dialog between Tehran and DC, perhaps all that the unimaginative types can promulgate...
Certainly the response of Russia and China (both of whom have strong economic ties to Iran) should cause us to be wary of such an action. However, I would think there is always a strong chance we simply "outsource" any airstrikes to the Israelis, who seem to really enjoy using the F-16s we sold them.
If the neocons want war, why can't we simply invade Grenada again?
2007-09-13 05:35:15 · answer #1 · answered by outcrop 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with THE_GUY_OVER_THERE.
Andy didn't even click on the link.
Will the US or Israel attack Iran? Um...no.
Reason: Attacking Iran would make things more difficult for the US in Iraq. Remember, there are people who are more loyal to Iran than their own countries.
Attacking Iran would also threaten the Arab regimes who host the US bases in their own countries.
I am not saying the Iran can defeat the US, but countering Iran in anyway would certainly not be easy and straightforward as the article makes it appear.
Iran's nuclear facilities took years to build. No one said anything then. And Iran is a member of the NPT (which, not surprisingly, Israel isn't).
And any country would get energy as easily as possible. There is a high demand for energy in Iran. Nuclear power is one way.
And regarding its oil wealth, its common sense. Oil is priced at $70/barrel. Iran can get a lot of money out of that. So there are many benefits from which Iran can get out of its nuclear program.
Iran does not have the capability to fire missiles into the US. And even if it does, the US has its missile defence shield which can take care of most missile threats.
And even if it does nuke Israel, the Palestinians would die too. Why would they want to do that?
Consider the article as Neocon-Zionist propaganda.
I doubt if anybody would approve an attack on Iran. If that happens, the US itself would be a form of dictatorship, based on some democratic principles.
2007-09-13 04:37:58 · answer #2 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the idea at all, but I'd say it's a very strong possibility since the tension has been steadily building. Also, it seems the media is 'gearing up' for war (again) and we don't have an administration that is strong on diplomacy. There are enough links to fill pages, here are a few that have stood out to me:
-- Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran
"The source also said Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democrat, to deal with Iran decisively."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:191pzkeVm7UJ:www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html+%22Iran+still+in+Limbo%22+guardian+bush+cheney&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
-- As Cheney Pushes Bush to Attack Iran, U.S. and Iranian Activists Call for Peace
Sen. Lieberman has supported censure and a possible US military strike on Iran.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/16/1330225
-- I don't watch FOX news, but got an email a few weeks ago about a new video that compares the similiarities between FOX news items about Iraq prior to the invasion and recent FOX news items about Iran.
http://foxattacks.com/facts/iran_transcript
-- False Flag Terrorism
Historical "False Flag" incidents, Iran, links to many other sources.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag
-- Pentagon "Three-Day Blitz" Plan for Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
-- Five Easy Pieces to Iran: The Jigsaw to Armageddon
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=658
Or maybe we'll be hearing soon that the latest bin Laden video proves he's in Iran (again) and the Bush administration wants to go after him (again).
2007-09-13 11:48:20 · answer #3 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possibly, but even our "genius" neoconservatives realize that American resources would be stretched thin even further than they already are due to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, that alone would not be enough to sway some staunch neocons from advocating using "pre-emptive" force against the Iranian regime. For them, it's all about sticking to questionable principles and a potentially high profit margin for greedy contractors looking to make a killing (pun intended) off an Iranian invasion and possible occupation.
infrobrokernate: How about answering the question at hand instead of posting irrelevant tripe about Clinton?
2007-09-13 04:20:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
they are going to use their proxy: Israel to do injury from the air. There are not adequate American troops to share the burden of occupying Iran and Iraq. Israel is already sorting out the water, they have been flying over Syrian (a particular Iranian best chum) airspace and dropping ordinance, and now Iran has announce they have drawn up plans to retaliate with their very own bombers. The neocons have already began the ball rolling.
2016-10-10 12:17:33 · answer #5 · answered by overall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You bet they are next. I think people are going to finally realize that our military might has limitations. It will be a disaster. I am fully convinced that Iraq has gone exactly as planned. They have made a fortune off of high priced oil when they start bombing Iran the price of oil will sky rocket. I always find it humorous when people say "we don't get any oil from iran" Oil is traded on a world market we still have to compete for that oil. Oil will cross 100 in a blink of an eye and probably go much higher. The robber barrons will get filthy rich and everyone else will pay dearly. I think Bush will signal his intentions very clearly in his speech tonight.
2007-09-13 04:14:56 · answer #6 · answered by JF 3 · 7⤊ 1⤋
I guess andy g doesn't realize the Jerusalem Post is considered to be the primary mouthpiece of American neocons in the middle east.He probably didn't even click the link.
But,getting back to the question,it appears as if Cheney will get more war.Reports the last few weeks indicate that Rice is losing the battle against Cheney,and that the hawks are once again gaining the upper hand in the administration.
War forever and ever,amen.
No thanks.
2007-09-13 04:10:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The paid professional NeoCons are pooh-poohing comments about Bush's desire to attack Iran.
That could only mean he is closer to attacking Iran that ever.
Watch how that, "Iranian made rocket" will be all over the Bush controlled Media today.
2007-09-13 04:29:17 · answer #8 · answered by ? 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Notice all of the great counter points being presented – Bloody Genius!
2007-09-13 04:10:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I know Iran hates us and wants to destroy us (the president of Iran has said it countless times) but what's the big deal if we just let Iran conquer us, kill most of us and really just take us over. Wouldn't it then bring peace to the world? Isn't that what it's all about anyway? Iran wants Armaggedon. Let's fool them and not partake in a war and just let them destroy us. Really, the world would be so much safer.
Wow, it feels weird promoting the democratic party agenda. But if you disagree with me you must be a racist Bush lover.
2007-09-13 04:13:49 · answer #10 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋