Is the United States gearing up for an attack on Iran?

[geetrue]

The deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf has analysts speculating that President Bush means to stop Tehran's nuclear ambitions by force if necessary.

The USS John C. Stennis was scheduled to sail Tuesday from its homeport of
Bremerton, Washington. When the second carrrier arrives in the Middle East next month, this will be the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq invasion in 2003 that the United States will have two carrier battle groups in the region, according to a U.S. Navy official.

The increase in U.S. forces is a show of strength by Washington in the face of Iran's growing regional assertiveness and a perception among U.S. adversaries that the United States is vulnerable in Iraq, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.


Here's a link to more of the same article, but it says we have thirty
(30) days till the USS Stennis gets on station.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119590


At least that's after the playoffs, super bowl and the pro bowl.
They can do anything they want after that ...

[Gizzmoe]

geetrue, please check your PM.

[mr chris]

Very intresting indeed. :hmm::hmm:

[TteFAboB]

http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blywwiip185.htm

http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blywwiip2.htm

http://www.loudfrog.com/itemdetail.aspx?detailID=62513

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govinfo/collections/wwii-posters/img/ww0207-82.jpg

Power Projection. Ahmadinejad is like a Barbary pirate. Show strength, they cower and comply. Show weakness and they leap forward out of their toothpick castles. Draw the line, watch him shake his legs and pee himself.

[mapuc]

I wonder if The US has come to the same conclusion as I have.

Peace In the middle east? then erase Syria and Iran and put a stronghold on Saudia-Arabia, Egypt and Jemen.

Markus

[U-533]

I wonder if The US has come to the same conclusion as I have.

Peace In the middle east? then erase Syria and Iran and put a stronghold on Saudia-Arabia, Egypt and Jemen.

Markus

Probably not... we got certain folks over here whining and starting all kinds of peace marches ...60's stuff

I think soon we will cave in and let the terrorist have their way.
Yes I said TERRORIST... what else would you call a Muslim country with Nukes?

[Melonfish]

hmmm. you know i jumped to this conclusion myself after reading that the yanks have sent another carrier to the middle east...
i think somethings going on but we'll have to wait and see if something happens.
if it does i think it'll be conventional weapons v's irans enrichment sites. better that then israel nuking them with dirty bombs.
pete

[Fish]

They claim a drone shot down.

http://www.thememriblog.org/

[Enigma]

It's a display of military might. So far, thats all it is. Hopefully, thats all it will have to be. :nope:

[baggygreen]

They claim a drone shot down.

http://www.thememriblog.org/I looked through that site, yet found no stories relating to this alleged incident?

I think it'll be more than a show of force..

[peterloo]

Hard to tell... I don't know what the hell is Bush thinking... USA has suspected that Iran processed nuclear weapons for ages... Perhaps Bush has got an excuse to attack her

[Chaotic42]

Well, I've heard a lot of people compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

I don't know of anything good or helpful to the rest of the world that's coming out of Iran, and we have to worry about our interests.

[baggygreen]

thats just the thing mate, you've said it well - iran is just like germany.

History keeps repeating, because people are the same throughout time. we are nasty, vile, destructive things. because basic human nature doesnt change throughout the ages, history repeats. It happens because we allow ourselves to forget the past lessons learnt, and so have to learn it again.

Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

[Schatten]

I agree with pretty much everything said about the parallels between Germany in the '30s and Iran right now.

That also reminds me of something former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently in a speech he gave over here in the US, basically he related a story about meeting a Holocaust survivor and asking him what the biggest lesson the world should have learned from that period was, and the old man said,"When someone says they're going to exterminate you, you should believe them."

That's a pretty simple lesson you'd think, but a lot of people don't want to believe that Iran is serious because we're living in the 21st Century and we're all oh-so-civilized. But the thing is Baggygreen's got it right, we're not so very civilized afterall and such things could definately happen again. The naive belief that a war of extermination could never happen again only makes it even more likely, and perhaps even inevitable unless the world stands up and realises that sometimes people really do mean what they say...even if it's something you really don't want to hear or doesn't fit in with your own view of the modern world.

As for this part...


Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

My money's on these folks.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c395/Scatty124/00160097.jpg

:yep:

[Seth8530]

A very intersting thought indeed. I belive if are to attack them we should do it soon.
Alsoo could the extra 20,000 troops be for Iran. Time will tell.

[Enigma]

Alsoo could the extra 20,000 troops be for Iran. Time will tell.

I have to say, this would be political suicide, not to mention our final osticizing from the world community. Besides that, 20'000 plus what we have there now is not near enough to take on Iran. The only way they could pull that off is be lying to the American people and the world about why the troops are there, and we both know the President doesnt lie or mislead.

[Seth8530]

Rofl do i detect humour. But it is true that that is political suiside. I sopose you are correct.

[baggygreen]

To use 20,000 troops in iran is to sign a death warrant for each and every one. To invade Iran would involve a multinational effort much like the first gulf war. The troops are going there to fight the insurgency, probably mainly to reinforce massive sweeps across suburbs.

Iran will be taken down a notch (if anyone in the US leadership has the brains) by airstrikes.

[Chaotic42]

To use 20,000 troops in iran is to sign a death warrant for each and every one. To invade Iran would involve a multinational effort much like the first gulf war. The troops are going there to fight the insurgency, probably mainly to reinforce massive sweeps across suburbs.

Iran will be taken down a notch (if anyone in the US leadership has the brains) by airstrikes.

Well, the problem is that Europe wouldn't do anything substantial until the Iranian border runs through Paris. I can't forsee Europe ever contributing substantially to an attack on Iran.

[Tchocky]

Well, I've heard a lot of people compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

I don't know of anything good or helpful to the rest of the world that's coming out of Iran, and we have to worry about our interests.

thats just the thing mate, you've said it well - iran is just like germany.

History keeps repeating, because people are the same throughout time. we are nasty, vile, destructive things. because basic human nature doesnt change throughout the ages, history repeats. It happens because we allow ourselves to forget the past lessons learnt, and so have to learn it again.

Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

I agree with pretty much everything said about the parallels between Germany in the '30s and Iran right now.
Making parallels and comparisions isnt an argument. Every conflict is different in both essence and detail. Just because history teaches lessons and tends towards repetition doesnt make the world a ****ing photocopier.

[Chaotic42]

Well, I've heard a lot of people compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

I don't know of anything good or helpful to the rest of the world that's coming out of Iran, and we have to worry about our interests.
Making parallels and comparisions isnt an argument. Every conflict is different in both essence and detail. Just because history teaches lessons and tends towards repetition doesnt make the world a ****ing photocopier.

Really? I don't think anyone knew that. Thanks for stating the obvious, I don't know what we'd do without you.

Care to highlight the differences that you see between Iran today and Germany years ago?

[CCIP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

[baggygreen]

[quote=Chaotic42

Really? I don't think anyone knew that. Thanks for stating the obvious, I don't know what we'd do without you.

Care to highlight the differences that you see between Iran today and Germany years ago?[/quote]

potential response: They speak a different language. they look different. Different religion. different place. they live today. They dont have hitler.

************************************************** *************

lol chaotic, i know id be lost without him mate, suppose you would be too.

No, they arent one and the same. mercifully. Problem is, there are enough similarities in the situation for comparisons to be drawn! Whats worse is that the vocal minority want to follow exactly the same path of pacifism. Got us a long way last time didnt...

[baggygreen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

You know mate, i reckon in this case its probably a good thing - it means that people arent forgetting lessons learnt in the past.

[The Avon Lady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law
I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

[TteFAboB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law
I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

Indeed:


Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law#_note-CRDFSDA) that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Otherwise this would be an arbitrary rule, a law in the juridical sense.


There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_thread) is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate) was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general.
It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codicil) that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception".

As demonstrated by this thread.

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations to Hitler or Nazis

Were the comparisons of Germany and Iran mentioned earlier inappropriate, inordinate or hyperbolic?

(...) compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

"Everyone" obviously means everyone else or everyone that knows "they had to be stopped". Same with "no one", "no one" who didn't "do anything untill it was almost too late". But the situations aren't detailed. It could be the situation of the color of Apples in Germany and Iran, the weather, anything. Valid and invalid.

(...) thats just the thing mate, you've said it well - iran is just like germany

(...) people are the same throughout time. we are nasty, vile, destructive things. because basic human nature doesnt change throughout the ages, history repeats. It happens because we allow ourselves to forget the past lessons learnt, and so have to learn it again.

Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

What is exaggerated here is the language and not the similitude drawn. Iran is "just like" Germany, but right after, "people are the same throughout time", "basic human nature doesn't change". What is being considered "just like" is "basic human nature", that's what "people...throughout time" have in common, what's "the same". To reject this as inappropriate or inordinate we need to know what he means with "basic human nature". If he means that people both in 1930's Germany and today's Iran are humans, a valid comparison can be made. If he means "nasty, vile, destructive things" these elements in both 1930's Germany and today's Iran can be compared. Since he mentioned the passage of time (throughout time) it seems obvious to me that when he says "history repeats" he doesn't mean that the same situation repeats itself literally. "Who wants to be the new neville chamberlain" is clearly not a literal statement. If Chamberlain was to repeat himself or to be exactly the same nobody could become the "new" Chamberlain. To put it in a little less informal form: who wants to repeat Chamberlain's role in this similar situation?


I agree with pretty much everything said about the parallels between Germany in the '30s and Iran right now.


This one speaks of "parallels". If more than one parallel can be drawn, it's valid. I'm not going over the validity of the parallel he mentioned. Suffice to say he's actually agreeing with the quotes above which contain more than one parallel, at least two of which being valid.

So, the comparisons in the first quote are unknown, I'll not draw any conclusions based on my ignorance of them, they could be any and all previous comparisons of Iran and Germany which include the appropriate and the inappropriate ones, though I suppose, even though it isn't stated, that Chaotic doesn't intend to include the inappropriate ones. The comparisons possible in the second quote are perfectly fine, it is not the similitudes that are exaggerated but baggygreen who uses an exaggerated language to express himself. Unless we want to discuss texts, sentences, words and letters that do not relate to any idea, thought, intuition, experience or reality we must strive to understand what people meant to say, what they attempted to say and not their imperfect form of expression. There is one parallel exposed in the third quote which is also a post of agreement with the other two. In all three quotes valid comparisons (or parallels) are presupposed. Analyze Iran and find the parallels in 1930's Germany. And I don't see where it is suggested that history would literally repeat itself exactly as it happened before, with Blitzkrieg exactly like it happened (including the defects and errors), D-day, Mauser rifles, SS divisions, B-17 bombing formations, Convoys and Wolfpacks, etc.

Proof for some of this is baggygreen's 2nd post from mine:

No, they arent one and the same. mercifully. Problem is, there are enough similarities in the situation for comparisons to be drawn! Whats worse is that the vocal minority want to follow exactly the same path of pacifism. Got us a long way last time didnt...

Again, this "exactly" is exaggerated. It will not be actually exact. But similar or approximate. The language is exaggerated and informal but baggygreen is a real person, not a text sentence, with a real message to convey that we can understand if we don't detract into pure nominalism.

[baggygreen]

um

wow.:know: :rock:

Im impressed.

It took me literally (not exaggeratedly) 10 minutes or more to read, reread, and begin to think i comprehended it!;) That is an impressive piece of work.

In attempting to emulate the level of intellect shown, i would argue that an exaggeration is in the eye of the beholder, with the exception of something perhaps like "there were 29999999999999 people at the local under 9s afl match last weekend".

Of course, that wouldnt work and it would appear as though i was coming across as a bit of a smartass, which of course i am!:cool:

Moving along, that is an exceptionally well thought out response, which must have taken a bit of time to compose!

If i've understood it correctly, then the basic gist of the post is that Goodwins Law being applied here isnt quite an appropriate application. I think.:doh:

[mapuc]

If Todays Iran is equal to the NaziGermany ind the mid 30's and beginning of the 40's, then Israel must be, what England was then.

Markus

[Fish]

Good news? :hmm:

Published: January 19, 2007
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/index.html?inline=nyt-per), appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.
Just one month after the United Nations Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ali_khamenei/index.html?inline=nyt-per), called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.
In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.
It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[CCIP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

Had I not done that, and many months ago at that, I would not have linked.

I had presumed you weren't the only one allowed to link things in a semi-sarcastic fashion :p

[bradclark1]

Good news? :hmm:

Published: January 19, 2007
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/index.html?inline=nyt-per), appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.
Just one month after the United Nations Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ali_khamenei/index.html?inline=nyt-per), called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.
In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.
It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Maybe it's a face saving way for them to back off because I can't see how Alphabet can do anything without the Ayatollahs blessing therefor if he is publicly rumbling it's a face saving way for the Ayatollah to back down.
Or,
It's just my cynical way of looking at things. :)

[geetrue]

Maybe it's a face saving way for them to back off because I can't see how Alphabet can do anything without the Ayatollahs blessing therefor if he is publicly rumbling it's a face saving way for the Ayatollah to back down.
Or,
It's just my cynical way of looking at things. :)


Now that's just plain funny, Alphabet ... :lol:

I can't spell his name either ...

But what if the Ayatollah's learned from Saddam's mistake ... makes Iraqy Freedom not in vain ... Didn't Saddam try to surrender right before we crossed over the line of no return ...?

[waste gate]

Maybe it's a face saving way for them to back off because I can't see how Alphabet can do anything without the Ayatollahs blessing therefor if he is publicly rumbling it's a face saving way for the Ayatollah to back down.
Or,
It's just my cynical way of looking at things. :)


Now that's just plain funny, Alphabet ... :lol:

I can't spell his name either ...

But what if the Ayatollah's learned from Saddam's mistake ... makes Iraqy Freedom not in vain ... Didn't Saddam try to surrender right before we crossed over the line of no return ...?

This is telling about the psychology that is being dealt with.
Lying for Allah is okay, according to the eminent Islamic scholar Imam Ghazali, who wrote:

" When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible " (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).

Imam Ghazali does not say this without knowledge. He is basing his fatwa on the words and examples of the Prophet himself.

In one hadith we read that the prophet calls upon his followers to assassinate Ka’b ibn Ashraf, the chief of a Jewish tribe who was wary of Muhammad and tells them it is okay to tell a lie to deceive him. Bukhari, Volume 5, #369

The fact is that Muslims feel no pang of conscience to lie if that lie is said for Allah’s sake and his religion. If the lie is said for a good cause it is okay.

[Iceman]

Yea don't miss the bigger picture...even if Iran says ...ooo OK OK..we'll stop...who's gonna believe that...yea right ...the hole has been dug already...just waiting for someone to kick in the dirt now...damn people are slow.Unless they roll over and let us scratch they're bellies then not a resaonable soul on earth should believe that they're ways have changed...kinda like another country huh?

[Seth8530]

An excellent point. Even thiough it appears that an assault on Iran is not immenint I do belive however it will happen relativly soon (within decade) Also i belive if we are to attack we whould do it before they can use nukes.

[Chaotic42]

"Everyone" obviously means everyone else or everyone that knows "they had to be stopped". Same with "no one", "no one" who didn't "do anything untill it was almost too late". But the situations aren't detailed. It could be the situation of the color of Apples in Germany and Iran, the weather, anything. Valid and invalid.


Obviously.

Maybe it's the grogginess of not having my first cup of coffee this afternoon, but I don't quite understand your point. You seem to be picking apart everyone's words in such a way that you can't understand their real meaning because of your analysis of them. You know very well that we aren't talking about weather. The situations are detailed by the subject other comments in this thread. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, other than that you possess the ability to spin words around in an attempt at sounding relevant.

Does the comparison between Iran and Germany have some validity? I think it does. Some things are different, some things are similar. Just because you aren't able to figure out exactly what other people are talking about doesn't make them wrong.

[TteFAboB]

That's exactly my point. If you take somebody's post out of context and consider it in itself, out the window goes the chance of understanding what the author meant and down you go to the road that leads nowhere.

Just because you aren't able to figure out exactly what other people are talking about doesn't make them wrong.

This is precisely my point. You've managed to express with 19 words what took me a hundred.

[Chaotic42]

That's exactly my point. If you take somebody's post out of context and consider it in itself, out the window goes the chance of understanding what the author meant and down you go to the road that leads nowhere.

Just because you aren't able to figure out exactly what other people are talking about doesn't make them wrong.
This is precisely my point. You've managed to express with 19 words what took me a hundred.

I re-read my post and it doesn't really come across the way I intended. It sounds a bit insulting, and that wasn't my intention, so I appologize for that.

[TteFAboB]

No problem. :up: You are the second one here giving me the impression that perhaps I should emphasize my conclusions a bit more instead of leaving them in the air like a damn puzzle that needs to be arranged.

Note to self: emphasize conclusions. Leave no ambiguity. Trim all edges. Fill in every hole. Clearness is my friend.

[The Avon Lady]

One could only hope for an inside job (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/20/iranian-student-leader-bomb-iran/) but I wouldn't depend upon it.