Bush Strategy for Iran

ptsdkid · Mar 6, 2006

Notice that Iran and Iraq are two countries labeled as axis of evil by Bush. Be aware that the modern day Hitler of Iran has spoken out for his plans to annihilate both Israel and the United States. The U.S. has pinpointed most of Iran's nuclear weapons plants. It is just a matter of time before the U.S. coupled with United Nations allies take out little Hitler and his nuke plants.

I doubt if anyone believes that merely placing economic sanctions on Iran would do any good. So this is where the brilliance behind Bush (our commander-in-chief) strategic military preparation comes in. I wouldn't expect non-military civilans to grasp onto this foresight as easy as that of a veteran. However, I will now give you the details to this plan as I see it.

Strategic military locations surrounding the country of Iran are paramount here. Find yourself a pictured map of the world so I can guide through the plan.

Notice that we now (thanks to Bush) have numerous land and sea locations surrounding Iran in which to set up our missle launches. Bush just got done buddying up to the leader of Pakistan. We have the entire country of Iraq and Afghanastan in which to use for our military objective. Don't forget to use the map. Can you see now why getting friendly with the folks from Dubai becomes an even greater assest to our war on terror? Dubai is right on the straight of Hurmuz; a straight that extends far into the country of Iran. A straight that connects to the Persian Gulf; the length of which runs entirely on the border of Iran. It would be so much easier to run gun ships up the straight of Hurmuz if we have the folks from Dubai on our side...wouldn't you say? This isn't a geography lesson per say; more like a strategic military lesson for fighting world wide terrorism. Oust the bad guys and their regimes by supplanting it with Democratic ideals. Bush's foresight is just so brilliant here.

G-Man · Mar 6, 2006

ptsdkid said:
Notice that Iran and Iraq are two countries labeled as axis of evil by Bush. Be aware that the modern day Hitler of Iran has spoken out for his plans to annihilate both Israel and the United States. The U.S. has pinpointed most of Iran's nuclear weapons plants. It is just a matter of time before the U.S. coupled with United Nations allies take out little Hitler and his nuke plants.

I doubt if anyone believes that merely placing economic sanctions on Iran would do any good. So this is where the brilliance behind Bush (our commander-in-chief) strategic military preparation comes in. I wouldn't expect non-military civilans to grasp onto this foresight as easy as that of a veteran. However, I will now give you the details to this plan as I see it.

Strategic military locations surrounding the country of Iran are paramount here. Find yourself a pictured map of the world so I can guide through the plan.

Notice that we now (thanks to Bush) have numerous land and sea locations surrounding Iran in which to set up our missle launches. Bush just got done buddying up to the leader of Pakistan. We have the entire country of Iraq and Afghanastan in which to use for our military objective. Don't forget to use the map. Can you see now why getting friendly with the folks from Dubai becomes an even greater assest to our war on terror? Dubai is right on the straight of Hurmuz; a straight that extends far into the country of Iran. A straight that connects to the Persian Gulf; the length of which runs entirely on the border of Iran. It would be so much easier to run gun ships up the straight of Hurmuz if we have the folks from Dubai on our side...wouldn't you say? This isn't a geography lesson per say; more like a strategic military lesson for fighting world wide terrorism. Oust the bad guys and their regimes by supplanting it with Democratic ideals. Bush's foresight is just so brilliant here.

Did it ever occur to you that Iran is seeking nuclear technology and more importantly a nuclear bomb BECAUSE it finds itself surrounded by US forces??

Of course it feels threatened....if it can build 'the bomb' its immune from US attack. Yes, great plan. We have basically forced it to try and develop a nuc. - unless of course that was the real plan i.e to force its hand so we could then attack and take its oil but I feel that is far too complicated for G W.

As for it being easier to strike..we can launch missles and planes from the Gulf with great ease so its hardly a major factor - unless of course you want to wage a ground war but after the problems in Iraq I can't see that happening. Air strikes maybe..but ground forces not now!!

ptsdkid · Mar 6, 2006

G-Man said:
Did it ever occur to you that Iran is seeking nuclear technology and more importantly a nuclear bomb BECAUSE it finds itself surrounded by US forces??
Of course it feels threatened....if it can build 'the bomb' its immune from US attack. Yes, great plan. We have basically forced it to try and develop a nuc. - unless of course that was the real plan i.e to force its hand so we could then attack and take its oil but I feel that is far too complicated for G W.

***Surely you're joking here. Iran already has the nuclear technology, and they've had it for years now, thanks primarily to Russia and or the former Soviet Union. You need to listen to the news where Iran's modern day Hitler has publically said that his job was to annihilate both Israel and the United States with nuclear weapons. That doesn't sound like a country that is still in the developmental stage of producing nuclear warheads. And the only time oil is mentioned as a possible target for so-called U.S. imperialistic needs--is when a liberal uses it to justify their weak platform on foreign affairs. Oil is not a factor here in Bush's determination to spread democracy.

As for it being easier to strike..we can launch missles and planes from the Gulf with great ease so its hardly a major factor - unless of course you want to wage a ground war but after the problems in Iraq I can't see that happening. Air strikes maybe..but ground forces not now!!

***Last night I watched a series on war hosted by Ollie North. Military men were showing simulated base sites in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanastan in which to set up our missle bases. Missle projectories were even shown as the weapons hit bullseyes on all close by targets of nuclear facilities in Iran. Long range missles coming from a country like France or Germany would lose accuracy on it's intended target. Besides, France and Germany told the US to take a hike when we asked for their land sites for our jet power to strike Iraq. Setting up bases in bordering countries to Iran just makes logistical sense. End of story.

G-Man · Mar 6, 2006

ptsdkid said:
***Surely you're joking here. Iran already has the nuclear technology, and they've had it for years now, thanks primarily to Russia and or the former Soviet Union. You need to listen to the news where Iran's modern day Hitler has publically said that his job was to annihilate both Israel and the United States with nuclear weapons. That doesn't sound like a country that is still in the developmental stage of producing nuclear warheads. And the only time oil is mentioned as a possible target for so-called U.S. imperialistic needs--is when a liberal uses it to justify their weak platform on foreign affairs. Oil is not a factor here in Bush's determination to spread democracy.

***Last night I watched a series on war hosted by Ollie North. Military men were showing simulated base sites in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanastan in which to set up our missle bases. Missle projectories were even shown as the weapons hit bullseyes on all close by targets of nuclear facilities in Iran. Long range missles coming from a country like France or Germany would lose accuracy on it's intended target. Besides, France and Germany told the US to take a hike when we asked for their land sites for our jet power to strike Iraq. Setting up bases in bordering countries to Iran just makes logistical sense. End of story.

Determination to spread democracy...please don't make me laugh!!

We ask for democracy in Palestine and immediately after they've voted we're planning how to get rid of the elected govt. - democracy doesn't always work out in our interests you know!

You still haven't argued why they wouldn't feel threatened by US forces on all sides of them. Of course this would make them nervous. best way to avoid attack by US....have a nuclear capability. Its not rocket science (well it is a bit actually!!)

Also, they may have plenty of noises to make but they're hardly likely to aim a nuke at Israel..there would be one coming straight back (same for the US).

N.B I was joking about the oil...but your response is absurd. 'Oil is not a factor in Bush's determination to spread democracy. ' Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why we are not 'forcing' S Arabia to accept democracy?
Complete dictatorship, apalling human rights record, terrrorst safe haven, women stuck in the middle ages - seems a prime candidate for democracy but no pressure from Uncle Sam. Wonder why that is??

Who the heck is talking about launching missles from France and Germany? We have a massive carrier fleet and thousands of missles (even nukes) could be fired from ships in the gulf. As I said, unless you are taling of a ground war our positions around Iran's borders are irrelevant to military action.

Billo_Really · Mar 6, 2006

Originally posted by pstdkid;
Oil is not a factor here in Bush's determination to spread democracy.

What democracy? Amnesty International just made a statement that people are still being tortured in Iraq. If not by US forces, by Iraqi forces. So what has changed? No Hussein. That's about it. So what democracy are you talking about?

KCConservative · Mar 6, 2006

Billo_Really said:
What democracy? Amnesty International just made a statement that people are still being tortured in Iraq. If not by US forces, by Iraqi forces. So what has changed? No Hussein. That's about it. So what democracy are you talking about?

The democracy we are trying to give them and for which you oppose.

Billo_Really · Mar 6, 2006

Originally posted by KCConservative:
The democracy we are trying to give them and for which you oppose.

Your not giving anyone anything when you do it at the end of a gun.

KCConservative · Mar 6, 2006

Billo_Really said:
Your not giving anyone anything when you do it at the end of a gun.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Terrorists are at the end of a gun. The good people of Iraq deserve more than what Saddam gave them or al-Quida wish for them. Sorry, but even with enemy sympathisers like yourself, we're going to finish the job.

Billo_Really · Mar 6, 2006

Originally posted by KCConservative:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Terrorists are at the end of a gun. The good people of Iraq deserve more than what Saddam gave them or al-Quida wish for them. Sorry, but even with enemy sympathisers like yourself, we're going to finish the job.

There you go again with your dis-information and slander. The good people of Iraq are winding up at the end of those guns too. And everytime I bring this to your attention, you say I'm sympathetic to the enemy. I don't think you know the difference. Nor do I think you even care. Because not once have you displayed the ability to tell the difference.

KCConservative · Mar 6, 2006

Billo_Really said:
The good people of Iraq are winding up at the end of those guns too.

I am aware of that. How about helping rather than getting in the way?

shuamort · Mar 6, 2006

Umm, folks. Iran IS a democracy. Just because you don't like whom they vote in doesn't give us a right to invade their country and supplant a form of government that already exists.

From the CIA:

Background:
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. Conservative clerical forces established a theocratic system of government with ultimate political authority nominally vested in a learned religious scholar. Iranian-US relations have been strained since a group of Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and held it until 20 January 1981. During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq that eventually expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between US Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987-1988. Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere in the world and remains subject to US economic sanctions and export controls because of its continued involvement. Following the elections of a reformist president and Majlis in the late 1990s, attempts to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction floundered as conservative politicians prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and made electoral gains against reformers. Parliamentary elections in 2004 and the August 2005 inauguration of a conservative stalwart as president, completed the reconsolidation of conservative power in Iran's government.

Executive branch:
chief of state: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
head of government: President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD (since 3 August 2005) First Vice President Parviz DAVUDI (since 11 September 2005)
cabinet: Council of Ministers selected by the president with legislative approval; the Supreme Leader has some control over appointments to the more sensitive ministries
elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts; president elected by popular vote for a four-year term; election last held 17 June 2005 with a two-candidate runoff on 24 June 2005 (next to be held NA 2009)
election results: Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD elected president; percent of vote - Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD 62%, Ali Akbar Hashemi RAFSANJANI 36%; note - 2% of ballots spoiled

Legislative branch:
unicameral Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami (290 seats, note - changed from 270 seats with the 18 February 2000 election; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 20 February 2004 with a runoff held 7 May 2004 (next to be held February 2008)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - conservatives/Islamists 190, reformers 50, independents 43, religious minorities 5, and 2 seats unaccounted for

oldreliable67 · Mar 7, 2006

shuamort said:
Just because you don't like whom they vote in doesn't give us a right to invade their country and supplant a form of government that already exists.

A major problem with Iran is not who they are, it is what they are: "a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere in the world".

Furthermore, there is considerable disagreement in some cirlcles as to the asserted 'freedom' of elections in Iran:

The intervention of Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i in favour of two reformist candidates disqualified by the Council of the Guardians proves, if proof was needed, that elections are not free in the Islamic Republic, political analysts said.

On Sunday, the guardians announced that out of the 1014 people who had registered for the position of presidency it had disqualified 1008 of them, keeping 6 hopefuls only, all but one affiliated to different factions of the ruling conservatives.

Source.

And from PBS:

The parliamentary election in Iran is more a test of public sentiment than a real political contest, since nearly two and a half thousand candidates have been banned from running. Forty-six million Iranians can cast their votes, but they can only chose a conservative parliament. That's why pro-reform politicians have urged Iranians to boycott the ballot.

And from another source:

May 23, 2005
"Elections" in Iran
The Guardian Council is the ultimate authority in Iran. Over the weekend, the council announced who will be allowed to run for president in the June 17 elections.

Out of 1,010 candidates hoping to run for the office, only six were approved. Among the six are four hardliners and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The nominee of the largest reform party was denied. The sixth candidate, Mehdi Karrubi, is difficult to classify, but does not have support from reformist movements.

It seems pretty clear that after the reformists made some gains in the 2000, election, the Guardian Council once again exercised its authority to protect its power. The ability of a supreme authority to regulate the candidates appearing on the ballots doesn't sound like very much of a democracy, IMO.

Kinda like Henry Ford said about Model T's, "you can have any color you want, as long as its black". Iranians can vote for any candidate thats on the ballot, but those candidates are only those approved by the Guardian Council.

shuamort · Mar 7, 2006

Very nice rebuttal, I bow to your superior information. Cheers!

Bush Strategy for Iran

ptsdkid

G-Man

Well-known member

ptsdkid

G-Man

Well-known member

Billo_Really

KCConservative

Billo_Really

KCConservative

Billo_Really

KCConservative

shuamort

Pundit-licious

oldreliable67

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Bush Strategy for Iran

Well-known member

Well-known member

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency