Bush Targets Iran in Speech, Implies Military Action

[jafar00]

*throws a couple of Aspirin and a bottle of water over to KDSM*

[Lad]

This is where politics should be played. Debate. If only politicians could debate as we do there would far less bloodshed. Why there has to be so many wars these days is beyond belief. War doesn't benefit anyone. That is the only good thing about the EU that I can see is that there is less likely to be war between members; though I think it is only matter of time before the EU breaks down.

[jafar00]

Perhaps the US can take a little bit of inspiration from the Iraqis? The Iraqi puppets are doing a far better job at resolving regional disputes with Iran through dialogue, not threats. It's about the only thing they are doing right.

[KDSM]

[quote=jafar00]
Perhaps the US can take a little bit of inspiration from the Iraqis? The Iraqi puppets are doing a far better job at resolving regional disputes with Iran through dialogue, not threats. It's about the only thing they are doing right.
[/quote]


you can talk to them but they will lie to your face and stab you in the back at the first oppurtunity. the iraqi government is also bring in 3 kurdish battalions to take care of the iraninan supplied and funded mahdi army

[jafar00]

It's funny how the Iraq war has been turned into an Iranian one. First it was the Iranians are supplying the insurgents with IED's, then it's they are supplying the shia side of the civil war.
The advanced IED's the insurgency were using that thwarted jamming efforts are actually Israeli technology as are the sniper rifles with video cameras attached that were used for propaganda efforts.
It's always somebody else's fault.

I'm just waiting for the next false flag terror attack (to be blamed on Iran of course) or for a "Tonkin" style attack on a US navy ship in the Gulf for Bush to be able disobey congress and launch an attack on Iran.

The really Ironic thing is, if the Bush does attack Iran, he will become the first person in centuries able to unite Shia and Sunni against a common foe. :p

[KDSM]

[quote=jafar00]
It's funny how the Iraq war has been turned into an Iranian one. First it was the Iranians are supplying the insurgents with IED's, then it's they are supplying the shia side of the civil war.
The advanced IED's the insurgency were using that thwarted jamming efforts are actually Israeli technology as are the sniper rifles with video cameras attached that were used for propaganda efforts.
It's always somebody else's fault.

I'm just waiting for the next false flag terror attack (to be blamed on Iran of course) or for a "Tonkin" style attack on a US navy ship in the Gulf for Bush to be able disobey congress and launch an attack on Iran.

The really Ironic thing is, if the Bush does attack Iran, he will become the first person in centuries able to unite Shia and Sunni against a common foe. :p
[/quote]

Iran has been the target all along classic hammer and anvil 1) Afghanistan 2) Iraq ....oh lookie who's in between......

[Lad]

For terrorists Afghanistan had to be invaded. Al-qaeda has now been smashed so badly, it is very difficult for them to operate. In the last 5 years (excluding 9/11) in the western world we have had about a handful attacks. Not what AL-qaeda would have hoped for, remember they trained thousands of terrorists.

Iraq was just the US wanting to finish of the 1990 gulf war, warn other regimes not to mess around, ensure their oil supplies were not at risk, make sure that when they invade Iran Iraq can't interfere and other reasons like that. The fact he killed hundreds of thousands of people and was a wicked man who deserved to be hung made only reasons to play with to the public. The same applies to the UK.

Iran should be invaded via air. We should engage all the military, but not send in ground troops. The threat can be mostly removed form the region without the need to sit in their land.

[appleton]

The threat can be mostly removed form the region without the need to sit in their land.

That sounds like a underestimation. We have seen what happens when we "think" we go in blow a place up and be out within a few months.

[Lass]

If you're referring to Iraq ^^ - we always intended to go in with the troops. That's why they were hanging around in Kuwait for weeks before. And though it might have gone on for longer than anticipated, that's not down to any ineffectiveness on the part of airstrikes. I'm sure that the US and UK governments knew we'd been in for years, actually, but they wouldn't have let us realise that to start with. But it's always the same - even when countries seem perfectly stable on their own two feet, there'll be a peace-keeping force or something left behind. Oh, and I do believe that Iraq's not making enough effort to stand on its own two feet. They need to get a grip lol.

*Signs off & leaves for second-to-last exam - private law today*

[appleton]

Why was military action on Iran even brought up in this thread? (It shouldn't happen unless clear evidence is found)

If there is anything the world needs right now it's not this. We will come off worse as I have explained in a previous thread. My very freedom's are being eaten away every day. In the future there could be times when the whole middle east is off limits to westerners. We have to think about both the security and reality aspect before engaging in other war. Things can happen unexpectedly in war so thing's should not be rushed. It's quite clear the beginning of this whole century has been a screw up war wise.

Remember Iran has a powerful army and has strong anti aircraft missiles. I can see disaster looming if Iran was attacked next. People would see it as a attack on them. That would make it 3 countries that have been attacked in the region by the west (Who seem to want to do good).

It needs to be thought over... It's currently not. Soon as we get someone decent in at number 10 (not Blair or brown) things may change... oh and get that guy out of the white house whose across the pound.