I started this thread to get people's opinions on the article about a pending attack on Iran. Not its origins and yet another thread of the same debate that has been covered time and again :cry:

Let's act civil so TK wont close it again.


Like I said, we wont attack unless attacked first. Not for a while, really.

Well, he does refer to the "Clean Break" paper written for PNAC by Richard Perle & Ben Netanyahu in 1996 which is the blueprint for the neocon's adventures in the Middle East. If you aren't familiar with it, perhaps you should bone up on your homework.

But the main reason I pay attention to what he says is his position as a moderate voice in the Arab world these past 50 years. Combine that with his position as the main foreign policy advisor to King Abdullah and his family's place as both the Sherifs of Mecca for 1000 years and his relatives ruled in Iraq for 50 years and you can see that it may be worthwhile listening to what he has to say. He also points out the historical nature of Ottoman reform before the advent of World War I.

The danger he points to is the Balkanisation of the Arab & Muslim world leading to a 100-year war in the region. So who would benefit from such a state of affairs?

In my opinion, as i've said several times, Iran needs an ass-kicking, now.:yep:

Suppose we leave them be, Britain can yell n kick n scream about their sailors and absolutely nothing will get done. Hostages stay hostages, and we get more condemnation, more sanctions followed by more retaliatory threats to shut down the Gulf, thus increasing oil prices and like someone already said, they get richer off it. Extra funds in the coffers means more to spend on their nuke program, as well as more funds to buy more sophisticated weaponry.

Essentially, we'd be letting them do as they please and they can thumb their noses at us all the more when they conduct a test. All that is ignoring the potential chaos that will ensue if coalition forces left Iraq, because its a pretty damn good assumption that Iran will merge with their shiite brethren, and isnt that a pleasant, comforting thought for us!


Worst case scenario: we have a soft, left-wing govt in power in the US (and others) who wont do anything to stop iran, and will then complain loudly about the republicans lack of foresight in not attacking iran when they had the chance, before nukes supplied by iran go off all over the western world. then the govts would call for discussions on how to sanction iran without offending their feelings.

dont worry as soon as they approach getting a viable nuclear weapon israel will do what nessessary as they did with iraq's french provided nuclear reactor

The Iranians haven't a clue, they didnt even put bags over their heads or leave them in forced positions.
Savages

so who wants to start a pool and bet and see who bombs iran first?

and another pool going to see how long iran will last?

:up:

i think thats a mighty fine idea! you wanna contact the local TAB elite??:lol:

Iran actually claims that they are "hostages." That means they kidnapped the sailors illegally. That means the Britain has the right to bomb them back to the stone age.


$20 bucks Britain will try a rescue, but America will come to save her butt. Again.:arrgh!: (Really, I think the Brits will go first)

$20 bucks that Iran's government lasts about two weeks.



EDIT: Oh crap. I just saw the other thread for it.

Just a theory.

as a matter of fact, ahmadinejad's sympathy scores with Iranian population are in free fall. He is loosing power and influence. Even the highest cleric council gave him a cold greeting some time ago.

what is best to boost your support scores? Distracting attention focused on you. give your critics an enemy from outside.

Couldn't it be that Ahmadinejad is actively seeking and hoping for a military strike by the West over the hostages, or the nuclear program? It would rally the Iranian people (which I still remember to be very proud of their country, no matter where they politically stand) if not behind Ahmadinejad, but then around the Iranian flag, and silence his critics over his hostile course towards the West. He then could say: "Look, I told you so that they just waited to strike us! We need our nuclear program, do you understand that now?" At the same time it is clear that Iran has very strong and incalculable tools for retaliation available, in Lebanon, in Iran, concerning the oil markets, and the anti-western terror scene. Any military action will not be limited to the Iranian region. Iran also has the ability to absorb air strikes alone, and they are no real threat to the key components of their nuclear program if such strikes are limited to conventional means. An intervention on the ground Iran must not fear (and I volunteer for shooting every Western leader seriously considering a major ground invasion in Iran).

If during the upcoming meetings in mid-April Iran does not offer an exchange (the UK sailors versus the Iranian prisoners the Americans took), I would take that as a hint that this theory maybe could be true. Ahmadinejad is fighting for his political survival, and he wouldn't be the first one hoping for a war to solve his problems.

I agree with Skybird, Ahmadinejad seems to be grasping at straws with this move. He's been flogging the Nukes = Nationalism issue for the last couple of years, and is still getting some traction from that. But sanctions over the issue are likely, and Iran is by most estimates still several years away from having a working bomb.

He gets more immediate bang for his buck out of something as stupid as taking hostages at sea. There's quite a tradition of nabbing adversary nationals in this way. Usually with at least the threat of a show trial and some coerced statements from the hostages to the press.

Neither we nor Britain are going to start bombing, we didn't do it in 1979, we're not going to do it now.

Nice Try Mahmoud...

In the near future there will be three US Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in the ME
 

One more Aircraft Carrier and it's battle group sailed toward the Middle East recently from the US West Coast. It won't take very long for it to arrive on station in the Middle East.

News media reports suggest that this carrier is a replacement for the Eisenhower or the Stennis. But as soon as it arrives that will position three Aircraft Carriers in the region.

With Iran taking British navy personal HOSTAGE and the US conducting war games off the Coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf things can get dicey real fast.

Since the US does not have a Embassy in Iran anymore it makes it hard to talk to the Iranians. And who really knows who controls Iran at this time? New stories suggest that there is a battle among the top Iranian Generals on what to do with the British Sailors.

Our last action against Iran was when one of our ships shot down an Iranian Air Liner thinking it was an attacking F14 fighter jet.

Last week the news media reported rumors that Iran has fired a missile at the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. But the US Navy said that was false. But who really knows what's going on in the Persian Gulf? I don't think any CCN, Fox or MSNBC reporters would be out in the gulf in a ship trying to see what's going on. And I doubt they they are flying over the Gulf observing ever thing going on there.

I do know one thing. Oil Prices shot up and with the US demand for gasoline increasing as fast as the air temperature the price for oil may continue up again.

I wish that the US had secured our oil supply back in 1972/72 when OPEC was first formed.

We are going to have to secure the oil supply from as many parts of the world as possible if the US economy is to continue to grow.