Invasion of Iran?

[jamesrage]

We don't know though. And that is the debate. We can't go to war because "Hey you might have weapons!". Canada might be harboring Osama Bin Laden. Do we know? No. Do we NOT know? No. So why must the answer be war?

Because waiting until the last minute can cost way more lives.Remember WWII?

Our intelligence was misleading and spotty at best. We cannot simply go to war with every country that dislikes us and maybe could possibly have weapons. North Korea had weapons, this we know almost 100%. But we never hear about them anymore.

We have a arministace with north Korea not a peace treaty,so techancally we are still at war with north Korea.

It's all politics, but we can't simply go to war because someone might have weapons. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic cog in the American Governmental machine, should it not apply to war, something that could end thousands of lives?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

 

[MSgt]

Because waiting until the last minute can cost way more lives.Remember WWII?

65 million people dead as a result of appeasements and cowardice to not act soon enough. These are numbers that our forward bases (embassies, military installations) and lesser conflicts have prevented ever since.

We have a arministace with north Korea not a peace treaty,so techancally we are still at war with north Korea.

Very true.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...ory?id=1616996

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

No matter how they slice it, Saddam had to go. President Bush Sr. knew it, President Clinton knew it, and President Bush Jr. knew it. One thing is definately certain...Saddam and his Regime, which frequently exported terror (Iran, Kuwait, Suicide bombers in Israel), is no longer a threat of any kind whether the threat was present or future.

One of the largest problems (diversion) in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. This will never be resolved as long as Palestinians continue to refuse to roll up their sleeves and get on with their lives and as long as Arab and Persian elite continue to fuel the issue through suicide bomber payments and hate propaganda. Saddam is no longer one of those financiers.

Like I keep saying, there was a multiple of reasons for taking out Saddam. He was a thorn in any peace treaty as is the Iranian elite. Iran developing nukes offers us the opportunity we need to take them out too. The History Channel has a DVD - Iran: The Next Iraq? - that is very infomative to the history of Iran's quest for past glory. We have been monitoring Iranian nuclear developmnents since before Khomeini took out the Shaw.

 

[Kandahar]

Yeah, isn't it fun to go to war *sarcasm*? Perhaps Iran shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons, just as I don't believe that anyone should be developing them. But, it seems truly unfair to say that we should be the only ones that are allowed to have nukes.

The fact is that we have nukes and we have the power to stop Iran from getting them. Abstract decisions about the "fairness" of such should have very little impact on our national security decisions. Personally I don't really care whether it's fair to the ayatollahs; bad things happen to people who kidnap political dissidents, execute homosexuals, place bounties on the heads of foreign intellectuals, incite anti-Western riots, and threaten to wipe other nations off the map.

Certainly we shouldn't invade Iran unless we are in imminent danger (and 1 year is not imminent enough in my mind).

One year isn't imminent? What time-scale seems appropriate to you? How long do you think a war would take? How much margin of error are you willing to allow?

 

[Deegan]

I just want to be clear about these "nukes" everyone keeps talking about, and how we have them, so everyone should have them. First, we were hardly planning to go atomic when we did, our hand was forced. The minute we knew that the Germans were working on a bomb, we had to respond, and we did, showing the world the devastation these WMD's could bring. It's nothing to be proud of, it's hardly even war, but it was necessary, and it had to be done, thus putting these weapons in responsible hands. Next came Russia, with their promise to rule with these WMD's, had we not matched them, there is no telling how Europe, or the states would look today. The point is simple, we have to stop the spread of this weaponry where ever possible, irresponsible countries will use them, history has taught us that, and it's a lesson we can Ill afford to forget!

 

[Tashah]

It doesn’t, but here is where that thing called common sense comes in. If you are watching a suspected chemical weapons depot because you are concerned that those chemical weapons will be deployed to enemy troops in the run up to an invasion, then why would you sit there and do nothing when you saw evidence of those weapons being moved?

Israeli surveillance satellites (SURVSATS) tracked and video-taped more than one truck convoy moving materials from Iraq to Syria. All convoy trucks were either covered or enclosed. It is impossible to know exactly what was transferred, but the Iraqi convoys terminated at Syrian military facilities and were unloaded inside warehouses. These transfers occured prior to the US theater military buildup and well before the invasion of Iraq. Israeli SURVSATS have also tracked and video-taped Chinese cargo ships docking at Syrian offshore port facilities. The cargo here consists of short-range rockets which are smuggled into Palestine, and medium-range missiles destined for Hizb'allah in the Bekaa Valley. Clearly, Syria has dirty hands.

As an aside, I would also point out that Saddam had a history of transfering military weaponry outside of Iraq in times of distress. During the Gulf War, the Iraqi Air Force escaped total destruction by taking flight en-mass to Iran.

Yes, that’s your claim. However, I only pointed out that the northern route to Syria was through Kurdish controlled area which would have limited the area that Saddam could have moved those weapons to Syria through.

The traditional Iraqi travel route to both Syria and Jordan is Highway 10 which runs through former Ba'athist strongholds such as Falujah and Ramadi in the mostly Sunni dominated province of Anbar in the Sunni Triangle. Actually, this is virtually the only modern highway an Iraqi convoy would use to reach the borders of Syria and Jordan.

It has been questioned why US fighter jets patroling the No-Fly zones did not intercept and destroy these Iraqi convoys. Firstly, Highway 10 is not located in either of the former northern or southern No-Fly zones. Secondly, if these convoys did indeed consist of chemical and/or biological agents, an attack could disperse these agents with untold human and environmental consequences.

I have three commissions that back my point of view.

So? Simply consider the venerated 9/11 Commission Report which itself is flawed, censored, and abbreviated.

All that being said, I hardly see what Iraq has to do with the current situation with Iran. Iran has publicly stated that it is pursuing nuclear weapons. The IAEA of the UN has documented numerous Iranian violations of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran is an original signatory. Iran has been caught by the IAEA building centrifuge-cascades for the purpose of enriching uranium reactor waste to weapons-grade uranium (HEU). Iran has imported missile technology from North Korea... and its Shahab-6 missile (currently in production) can target all of continental Europe. Iran has more than once publicly stated an intent to use its nuclear weapons against Israel.

The problem here is that waiting until an Iranian nuclear warhead is actually produced is well too late. Once a viable Iranian nuclear weapon is produced, there is no way to turn back the hands of time and erase this capability. Once the technology is mastered, Iran joins the ranks of nations with nuclear weapons. Just as Pakistan aided Iran in nuclear proliferation, Iran will have the capacity to sell or transfer this knowledge to whomever it pleases. I remind you that the Hamas and Hizb'allah terrorist organizations are closely aligned with Iran and are trained and armed by Iranian Pasdaran military units.

Since Iran is predominantly Shi'a Muslim, Sunni Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt will feel compelled to aquire their own nuclear deterence. This waterfall effect will nuclearize the Middle East... a highly unstable region by virtually any standard. The core issue here is very clear to me. Either the global community stands united to end Iranian and all nuclear proliferation, or the prospect of a nuclear Armageddon is almost a certainty.

 

[Willoughby]

65 million people dead as a result of appeasements and cowardice to not act soon enough. These are numbers that our forward bases (embassies, military installations) and lesser conflicts have prevented ever since.

and you only bothered joining WWII when you were attacked..the same can be said of the reaction after 911

 

[Volker]

Thats the net effect of your statement, "there was a consensus by multi-national secret services working together spinning facts."

Convenient claim. Obviously, you cannot back it up.

Don't twist the facts. You were saying, there was a mult-national consensus and with consensus you meant, secret services had their stories.

So by saying "there was a consensus by multi-national secret services working together spinning facts." I summed up your idea of multi-national consensus.

There was no claim to be proved and being familiar with the thread you should know it.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Would you support an invasion (war) with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program? Due to the fact that they are irresponsible.

From a pragmatic point of view, we certainly couldn't do this unilaterally. Our military is stretched pretty thin, and Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq with almost 3 times as many people.

We should pursue whatever diplomatic means we can first, especially with Russia and China and the UN.

We also need to avoid giving more toothless ultimatums to Iran that we can't back up.

 

[MSgt]

Yes, that’s your claim. However, I only pointed out that the northern route to Syria was through Kurdish controlled area which would have limited the area that Saddam could have moved those weapons to Syria through.

Highway 10 travels from Baghdad through Fallujah, through Ramadi and to Muhammadi. At this point an individual may take a right on Highway 12 or continue on Highway 10 and head straight across Iraq through Ar Rutbah and to the southern part of Syria (a turn on Highway 98 will take you directly to Jordan).

If turning right and heading on Highway 12, an individual will travel through Al Asad, through Haditha, past Rawah, and through Al-Qaim and to the Syrian border.

The highway that connects Highways 10 and 12 near the Syrian border is Highway 20.

If one were to head through the Kurdish area and on to Turkey, one would have to take Highway 1 or 2. The route through the "Kurdish controlled area" will not take you to Syria, unless you were willing to travel well out of your way. The most safest and quickest route for a Saddam convoy to Syria leads you through the Sunni triangle on Highways 10 and 12 - not Kurdish controlled areas.

 

[Volker]

Saddam was hiding something that he did want the world to see.I beleave he was still alllowed to have a normal military ,so he had no reason to hide regular weapons,armored vehicles and so on.

Iraq had a regular army and this was in accordance with international law. Americans were thinking about attacking Iraq. So Iraqi government could not have been interested to have defense plans, the positions of convential equipment and government building security installation watched by people working for American forces.

 

[MSgt]

and you only bothered joining WWII when you were attacked..the same can be said of the reaction after 911

That's right. That's us "staying out of it" until it bites us in the ***.

With Radical Islam, the threat is so obvious that there is no sense in waiting for it to bite us in the ***. We have already looked the other way for three decades as it grew and festered in lands of oppression and abuse where we are offered up on a platter by the Arab and Persian elite as the scapegoat. If we had acted over a decade ago, 9/11 need not to have happened.