• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When Will Usa Invade Iran ?

Fried Rice

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
177
Reaction score
7
Seems Iran shouls also be on USA invasion list but Bush seems very quiet on the topic. I mean nuclear weapons was reason for Iraq war and Iran is so close ?

How come no invasion plan ? Maybe they didnt try to kill his daddy yet ?

Fried Rice lives in Peace
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year, who knows?

I hope for peace except revolutionary conflict. But hopefully revolutions are peaceful but its doubtful.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fried Rice said:
Seems Iran shouls also be on USA invasion list but Bush seems very quiet on the topic.
I suppose in some senses of the word "should" you're prob'ly right.

Fried Rice said:
I mean nuclear weapons was reason for Iraq war and Iran is so close ?
Estimates are that Iran's about a decade away.

Fried Rice said:
How come no invasion plan ?
There's already an invasion plan. We have plans to invade most every area of the globe, including Canada.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The US won't invade Iran.

1. They don't have the money to do it. Iraq was and is very expensive for America.
2. The military is too stretched for a full invasion of Iraq.
3. The Iraq Government will not like it.
4. Iran is a guerrilas dream.
5. Iran has one of the biggest armies in the world, not a rag tag of Republican Guards.
6. The situation in Iraq is just that bad.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nestled within a mess of details, I found this from a White House Press briefing dated 8/3/05:

Q Do you have any reaction to the announcement by Iran that they're going to start uranium processing again on August 6th?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what they said - I mean, they had originally said they were going to start that this week. And now they've said that they're not proceeding right now on starting their uranium reprocessing and enrichment. I don't think it changes anything from what I said the other day, we continue to support the efforts by the Europeans to resolve this matter diplomatically. We have long-standing concerns about Iran's ambitions. And Iran made a commitment, the Paris agreement with the Europeans, not to restart their uranium and reprocessing activities - uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities while the talks were ongoing. It's important for Iran to live up to that commitment and abide by it. We've made very clear, as have the Europeans, that we're prepared to pursue a further course of action if necessary, if Iran is not going to live up to its agreements. And I think the Europeans have made very strong statements in a letter to Iran stating that they need to live up to that agreement.

and from a couple days prior:

Q Scott, is the White House concerned about the latest moves by Iran to return to some of its nuclear research?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the Europeans who have been working to negotiate a resolution, diplomatic resolution, to Iran's nuclear programs has expressed their concerns. I just -- yesterday I think they put out a statement saying that they would seek further clarification, but that it would be an unnecessary and damaging step by Iran. Iran made an agreement, the Paris agreement -- they agreed to abide by the Paris agreement, which called for Iran to suspend their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities while the negotiations were ongoing. The Europeans, along with the United States, believe that Iran should adhere to the Paris agreement and continue to work with the Europeans to resolve this issue.

We've made clear that if Iran is going to violate its agreement and restart uranium reprocessing enrichment activities, then we would have to look to the next step and we would be talking with our European friends about that next step.

Q What would be the next step?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we've repeatedly said that if they're not going to abide by their agreements and obligations, then we would have to look to the Security Council. And I think the Europeans have expressed that. But right now the Europeans are seeking clarification about what Iran's intentions are.
Going back further, we can see a statement by the President about the Iranian elections (and before anyone else gets to it, Pot Kettle Black on 2000 elections).
In recent months, the cause of freedom has made enormous gains in the broader Middle East. Millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq defied terrorists to cast their ballots in free elections. Palestinians voted for a new president who rejects violence and is working for democratic reform, and the people of Lebanon reclaimed their sovereignty and are now voting for new leadership. Across the Middle East, hopeful change is taking place. People are claiming their liberty. And as a tide of freedom sweeps this region, it will also come eventually to Iran.

The Iranian people are heirs to a great civilization - and they deserve a government that honors their ideals and unleashes their talent and creativity. Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy.

The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record. Iran's rulers denied more than a thousand people who put themselves forward as candidates, including popular reformers and women who have done so much for the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran.

The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest - and in which their leaders answer to them instead of the other way around. The Iranian people deserve a truly free and democratic society with a vibrant free press that informs the public and ensures transparency. They deserve freedom of assembly, so Iranians can gather and press for reform and a peaceful, loyal opposition can keep the government in check. They deserve a free economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity and economic independence from the state. They deserve an independent judiciary that will guarantee the rule of law and ensure equal justice for all Iranians. And they deserve a system that guarantees religious freedom, so that they can build a society in which compassion and tolerance prevail.

Today, the Iranian regime denies all these rights. It shuts down independent newspapers and websites and jails those who dare to challenge the corrupt system. It brutalizes its people and denies them their liberty.

America believes in the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. America believes in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future. America believes that freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul. And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GarzaUK said:
The US won't invade Iran.

1. They don't have the money to do it. Iraq was and is very expensive for America.
2. The military is too stretched for a full invasion of Iraq.
3. The Iraq Government will not like it.
4. Iran is a guerrilas dream.
5. Iran has one of the biggest armies in the world, not a rag tag of Republican Guards.
6. The situation in Iraq is just that bad.
Another terror attack on the US and all bets are off.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am all for Israel handling this one for the world, they did a good job last time, I don't know why that just can't bomb their nuclear facilities again. Still, we can not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, their death to the west mantra is too well known, and if anyone is in danger of allowing these weapons to get in to the wrong hands, it's Iran. I would hope they would drop one right on heads of these religious fanatics in the countries capital, but that's just wishful thinking on my part.;)
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Deegan said:
I am all for Israel handling this one for the world, they did a good job last time, I don't know why that just can't bomb their nuclear facilities again.
Their nuclear facilities haven't been bombed a first time. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to "bomb their nuclear facilities again." Have you perchance accidentally conflated things?

Deegan said:
Still, we can not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, their death to the west mantra is too well known, and if anyone is in danger of allowing these weapons to get in to the wrong hands, it's Iran.
Is this well known mantra the sole source of your conviction on his count? Or do you have some other reason for believing that Iranians yearn for "national obliteration," as Dr. Rice called it?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Their nuclear facilities haven't been bombed a first time. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to "bomb their nuclear facilities again
Israel had bombed the Osiraq nuclear plant near Baghdad in 1981 in an effort to thwart Iraq's nuclear programme.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/aug/29iran.htm

Simon, I think your stoic zealousness at correcting everyone else just bit you in the ass....
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Their nuclear facilities haven't been bombed a first time. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to "bomb their nuclear facilities again." Have you perchance accidentally conflated things?

Is this well known mantra the sole source of your conviction on his count? Or do you have some other reason for believing that Iranians yearn for "national obliteration," as Dr. Rice called it?

I did mean to say Iraq's nuclear facilities, thanks for calling that to my attention. It is clear that they got the job done in 81, and they can, and should be the ones to do it this time as well. I think it's time we brought these anti-semetic nazi's out of hiding, and this will do that very well. it is in Israel's best interest to protect themselves from Iran, and to show the Arab world they will not be quietly plotted on, and possibly attacked with out a fight.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
Israel had bombed the Osiraq nuclear plant near Baghdad in 1981 in an effort to thwart Iraq's nuclear programme.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/aug/29iran.htm

Simon, I think your stoic zealousness at correcting everyone else just bit you in the ass....
AFAICT, Osiraq was in IraQ not Iran. Notice in the snippet you provided that the location given is "near Baghdad" and the purpose was "thwart Iraq's nuclear programme. "

Hence my query about conflation.

My ass is already well scarred. I think there're even some teeth still stuck in there. I've got trouble seein it to tell.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Deegan said:
It is clear that they got the job done in 81, and they can, and should be the ones to do it this time as well.
IIRC, there're soem logistical problems, round trip refuleing issues I think. And another big difference is that the Iraqi reactor was above ground rather than in a fortified underground facility.

U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran's facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel's aircraft; They're also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground.

US plans for taking them out reportedly call for the use of nukes. Very few countries in the world are willing to give up their very, very , very expensive deterrents- nuclear weapons. Of those few we're the ones with most spare ones laying about. I'd expect that Israel will continue to be stingy with their nukes.

The problem is, it doesn't end there.

...the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

Deegan said:
. it is in Israel's best interest to protect themselves from Iran, and to show the Arab world they will not be quietly plotted on, and possibly attacked with out a fight.
It's not clear that it's in Israel's best interests to go after Iran's nuclear facilities.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
AFAICT, Osiraq was in IraQ not Iran. Notice in the snippet you provided that the location given is "near Baghdad" and the purpose was "thwart Iraq's nuclear programme. "

Hence my query about conflation.

My ass is already well scarred. I think there're even some teeth still stuck in there. I've got trouble seein it to tell.
Wow...as I turn to look in the morror, I seen it is "I" with the fresh scars on my butt.

As in the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna ...Never mind....:3oops:
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
IIRC, there're soem logistical problems, round trip refuleing issues I think. And another big difference is that the Iraqi reactor was above ground rather than in a fortified underground facility.

U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran's facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel's aircraft; They're also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground.

US plans for taking them out reportedly call for the use of nukes. Very few countries in the world are willing to give up their very, very , very expensive deterrents- nuclear weapons. Of those few we're the ones with most spare ones laying about. I'd expect that Israel will continue to be stingy with their nukes.

The problem is, it doesn't end there.

...the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

It's not clear that it's in Israel's best interests to go after Iran's nuclear facilities.

I have heard recently that they are still ten years away from having the weapon, and they should strike from above as many times as necessary should Iran continue to work to these ends. Israel could use any of our numerous airfields from which to strike, and I am still not against my country aiding, and assisting in this, but I believe Israel must be involved. We obviously disagree that it is in Israel's best interest, but I think Israel would agree with me, as they hate them more then they will ever begin to hate the West.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
Wow...as I turn to look in the morror, I seen it is "I" with the fresh scars on my butt.
As in the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna ...Never mind....:3oops:
Well, you weren't the first person to do something like that and you certainly won't be the last.
It'd be inhuman (and inhumane to the rest of us) if someone didn't do that every now and then.

And, by escalation, I think the wargamers meant that other larger powers, like China, Pakistan, Russia et al become involved.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Deegan said:
Israel could use any of our numerous airfields from which to strike...
Which ones are you referring to?

Deegan said:
...I think Israel would agree with me, as they [Iran?]hate them [Israel?] more then they will ever begin to hate the West.
From the little that I've been able to find, Iranians don't hate westerners so much as they hate western foreign policies. We've actually made great inroads into Iran in the blue-jeans-and-rock'n'roll department. We just have the really cool pop-culture ( I guess ).

A lot of the classic "Great Satan" rhetoric from Iran was directly related to our monkeying around in their internal affairs, Operation TPAJAX and all that. Many of the younger people apparently have had a less radical take on th West and the US in particular. Of course, of late (since the invasion of Iraq), our popularity as a nation has plummeted around the world especially in Muslim nations.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
A lot of the classic "Great Satan" rhetoric from Iran was directly related to our monkeying around in their internal affairs, Operation TPAJAX and all that.
And of course, this was all set against a backdrop of a couple of centuries of being a pawn in games between western powers, primarily Britain and Russia. Several times, Iran was hardly autonomous at all other than in name. they had English fellas running their treasury, Russian fellas controlling their national military (as opposed to the numerous militias).

Japan's war w/ Russia was inspirational to Iranians at the time. Iran was among the first ME nations to experience the drive for democratic and constitutional reform. They've got well over a century of such pressures and ideal under their belt. All of it expressed in their own idiom of course.

I think that as with China, as the old folk die off the newer generations will be more and more liberal. It just takes a very long time for old codgers to die if you're waiting on 'em.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
And of course, this was all set against a backdrop of a couple of centuries of being a pawn in games between western powers, primarily Britain and Russia. Several times, Iran was hardly autonomous at all other than in name. they had English fellas running their treasury, Russian fellas controlling their national military (as opposed to the numerous militias).

Japan's war w/ Russia was inspirational to Iranians at the time. Iran was among the first ME nations to experience the drive for democratic and constitutional reform. They've got well over a century of such pressures and ideal under their belt. All of it expressed in their own idiom of course.

I think that as with China, as the old folk die off the newer generations will be more and more liberal. It just takes a very long time for old codgers to die if you're waiting on 'em.

They are just too dangerous to play "wait and see" with, this is all I will say, and the large majority of the world thinks this as well. I hope the E.U is able to get through to them, but for some reason I am not holding out much help.:roll:
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The reason we have not bombed the Nuclear plants is because unlike Iraq's who were just in the development stage under French control, Iran is already turning out Uranium and Plutnoium and bombing the plant's would thus spread Nuclear fallout over miles of the region and since Iran has built the plant's very close to urban hub's it can use it's populace as a shield.

However I think that if Iran continues on it's course then as predicted by our government they will be ready to turn out development of nuclear weapons by the end of the year. So if Iran does not stop soon, I expect our airforce will hit them regardless. On another note we have recently purchased a cast quantity of bunkerbusting bombs which could potentially take out Irans underground silo's. We have also bought new engines and fighter-bombers capable of reaching and hitting Iran at a sufficient level while still having plenty of reserve fuel to return home.

Personally I hope we start a joint bombing raid and cruise missle attack against Iran soon.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
superskippy said:
However I think that if Iran continues on it's course then as predicted by our government they will be ready to turn out development of nuclear weapons by the end of the year.
Do you have a citation for this expectation about Iran's proximity to becoming a nuclear power?

Last I heard:

U.S., Israel Backtrack on Iran's Nukes
August 5, 2005

The Jerusalem Post reported Monday that Israel had reviewed its assessment of Iran's nuclear progress and now believes that Iran will have a nuclear bomb by 2012 and the capability to build one in 2008. Until now, Israeli officials had been warning that Iran would develop an atomic weapon between 2007 and 2009.
In January, the chief Israeli military intelligence, Aharon Ze'evi Farkash, said that Tehran would develop its first atomic weapon between 2007 and 2009 if it did not stop its uranium enrichment activities.
Where'd you get the idea that Iran'd have nukes by New Year's

superskippy said:
Personally I hope we start a joint bombing raid and cruise missle attack against Iran soon.
Can't hardly wait for folks to start getting blown to bits, huh?
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
superskippy said:
Personally I hope we start a joint bombing raid and cruise missle attack against Iran soon.
You might have your reasons for wanting to blow Iran to smithereens! But, personally, I'd rather us come to a peaceful solution. I'll garuantee that Iran will have Nuclear weapon whether we decide to attack them or not. Its just the standing we have with them that'll decide what happens next, I don't think that a government meeting which everyone shouts "Death to US" is a very good sign.
I believe in the coming years we should push for an International Disarament of Nuclear Weapons.

Either way, we're dead. If nuclear weapons doesn't get us, Yellow Stone Park will!
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why not send Iran's weapons program back a few decades by blowing up their Nuclear Facalities? And then do it again in twenty years. Rinse and Repeat. Iran will suffer Nuclear Fall out if it does not learn that it's weapons program will bring it harm.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Do you have a citation for this expectation about Iran's proximity to becoming a nuclear power?

Last I heard:

U.S., Israel Backtrack on Iran's Nukes
August 5, 2005

The Jerusalem Post reported Monday that Israel had reviewed its assessment of Iran's nuclear progress and now believes that Iran will have a nuclear bomb by 2012 and the capability to build one in 2008. Until now, Israeli officials had been warning that Iran would develop an atomic weapon between 2007 and 2009.
In January, the chief Israeli military intelligence, Aharon Ze'evi Farkash, said that Tehran would develop its first atomic weapon between 2007 and 2009 if it did not stop its uranium enrichment activities.
Where'd you get the idea that Iran'd have nukes by New Year's

Can't hardly wait for folks to start getting blown to bits, huh?

I never said they would have nuke's by the end of the year, I said they would have development capacity by the end of year, which put's them on the clear track to nuclear weapons. It means they will begin mass enrichment of Uranium, turning out large wuantities of heavy water and the like. In a few years following they would have nuclear weapons.

I want the Plant's blown up early rather than later, this also minimizes the civilian casulties from the destruction of an early stage nuclear facality in oppostion to a llate stage one a few years down the road.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
superskippy said:
Why not send Iran's weapons program back a few decades by blowing up their Nuclear Facalities? And then do it again in twenty years. Rinse and Repeat. Iran will suffer Nuclear Fall out if it does not learn that it's weapons program will bring it harm.
I like these threads were I don't have to add anything. Gives me more time in the basement.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
superskippy said:
Why not send Iran's weapons program back a few decades by blowing up their Nuclear Facalities? And then do it again in twenty years. Rinse and Repeat. Iran will suffer Nuclear Fall out if it does not learn that it's weapons program will bring it harm.
Mostly because it would not happen in isolation. The ramifications of doing so might be worse than not. The folks who wargamed it noticed that they were unable to keep the violence from escalating. Sometimes, some cures can be worse than some diseases.
 
Top Bottom