Will Bush attack Iran?

Commando · 02-17-2007, 19:58 PM

The question that poses here is with one already failed war in Iraq. Will Bush go against public opinion and launch an attack against Iran. Or maybe even if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would Bush have enough suport to even support Israel.

These are interesting questions and shows the power of the American people and the now democrats.

What do you guys think?

(my web) is Welcome To Cricket Comedy

dave lukins · 02-18-2007, 19:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando

The question that poses here is with one already failed war in Iraq. Will Bush go against public opinion and launch an attack against Iran. Or maybe even if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would Bush have enough suport to even support Israel.

These are interesting questions and shows the power of the American people and the now democrats.

What do you guys think?

(my web) is Welcome To Cricket Comedy

Commando Sir, not a snowballs chance in hell! For the time being Iraq "on suspension"

speedlover1994 · 02-19-2007, 11:46 AM

I doubt he will attack Iraq. With a year left, and Iraq still a mess, it looks like he's not even going to get to plan. (yay)

execrable · 02-19-2007, 13:39 PM

Trouble is, the rhetoric and build up seems to imply Bush is ready to open up a new front. Iraq and Afghanstan are still a mess but the talk of invading or bombing Iran is worryingly frequent and getting louder.

FSV · 02-19-2007, 16:20 PM

Attacking Iran without the prior approval of Congress, a formal Declaration of War, would result in the fastest Bill of Impeachment against Bush. Without that Congressional approval, Bush would be faced with military members refusing to obey the orders to attack.

It would take an incident of “Pearl Harbor” or the “World Trade Center” level, instigated by Iran, to get the American Public’s & Congressional support for such an attack.

execrable · 02-20-2007, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSV

Attacking Iran without the prior approval of Congress, a formal Declaration of War, would result in the fastest Bill of Impeachment against Bush.

I'm just asking - have to look up for myself - were these in place before we went into Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSV

It would take an incident of “Pearl Harbor” or the “World Trade Center” level, instigated by Iran, to get the American Public’s & Congressional support for such an attack.

What do you make of this then? US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Quote:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

Iran may be developing nuclear power / nuclear weapons but what reason does the U.S. have to say they have no right? Do as we say but not as we do?

FSV · 02-20-2007, 15:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by execrable

I'm just asking - have to look up for myself - were these in place before we went into Iraq?

Bush was authorized by Congress to conduct military operations against Iraq, prior to the invasion.

What do you make of this then? US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Any competent military makes plans. It would still require Congressional Authorization to execute these plans.

Iran may be developing nuclear power / nuclear weapons but what reason does the U.S. have to say they have no right? Do as we say but not as we do?

Granted the policy is a bit two-faced. The basis for this policy is that the government of Iran has a policy of supplying terrorist. Also the Iran government has basically stated “If you are not an Shia Muslim, you are our enemy and it is our religious duty to kill you.” Do you really want these people to have nuclear weapons?

xerxes · 02-20-2007, 20:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSV

Attacking Iran without the prior approval of Congress, a formal Declaration of War, would result in the fastest Bill of Impeachment against Bush. Without that Congressional approval, Bush would be faced with military members refusing to obey the orders to attack.

It would take an incident of “Pearl Harbor” or the “World Trade Center” level, instigated by Iran, to get the American Public’s & Congressional support for such an attack.

unless, a Tonkin Gulf incident happens in the Hormuz Strait. With all this military maneouvers, the warmongers from both sides might contribute to each other's cause by creating a casus belli, and thus a shooting war.

xerxes · 02-20-2007, 20:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando

The question that poses here is with one already failed war in Iraq. Will Bush go against public opinion and launch an attack against Iran. Or maybe even if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would Bush have enough suport to even support Israel.

Israel doesnt need US approval to attack, and had the nuclear situation in Iran was nothing less than a clear and present danger, Israeli would have already bombed Iran.

highsea · 02-20-2007, 20:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by execrable

Iran may be developing nuclear power / nuclear weapons but what reason does the U.S. have to say they have no right? Do as we say but not as we do?

The US isn't saying they can't have nuclear power. As an NPT signatory they are entitled to it, and we have recognized that over and over. However, when they signed the treaty, they agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. Signatory States get a lot of technical help as a result of this promise. That's why there are safeguards in place that all States have to comply with.

They have violated the Treaty several times, and hidden otherwise acceptable activities. This has caused suspicion, for obvious reasons.

There are many other factors that lead to the rather obvious conclusion that they are pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, but I am tired of repeating them...

Galrahn · 02-20-2007, 21:02 PM

I think people are missing what is right in front of them, and critical thought is being disregarded too easily. This messageboard is starting to follow the beat of the media editorial drum, and isn't taking an objective look at changes occuring.

Rumsfeld is gone, yet there is very little acknowledgement of the obvious strategical changes in policy that have taken place since he departed. McCain sees it, he tried to explain it this past weekend, but the US media political mindset tripped up on him insulting Rumsfeld. They talked about the trees and missed the forest.

I think it is interesting how Gates has changed US strategy, and yet people think the United States is going to attack Iran? Under Rumsfeld, I think it is a legitimate question whether the US would attack Iran, but under Gates I think the better question is will Iran attack the US?

I wonder how long it is going to take media observers (and messageboard posters who repeat talking points of armchair generals trained in journalism) to note the Gates strategy has changed what Iraq is to Iran. Under Rumsfeld, Iraq was a tripline in strategic Iranian policy, under Gates, Iraq has become the bait in strategic Iranian policy.

**Parihaka** · 02-20-2007, 21:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Under Rumsfeld, Iraq was a tripline in strategic Iranian policy, under Gates, Iraq has become the bait in strategic Iranian policy.

Sorry for being dumb but can you expand on this please?

Confed999 · 02-20-2007, 21:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSV

Bush was authorized by Congress to conduct military operations against Iraq, prior to the invasion.

I always find it interesting how the left leaners conveniently "forget" that fact.

FSV · 02-20-2007, 22:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Confed999

I always find it interesting how the left leaners conveniently "forget" that fact.

They do seem to disproportionally suffer from the “selective memory” disease.

xerxes · 02-20-2007, 23:33 PM

Is there a list that some of you are aware of that shows the lists of the times, when the Congress allowed force to be used against another nation

does wikipedia has list on this? ... thanks in advance

@Galrahn

I like what you wrote, quite clever. A point, if I may, although both Wolfwitz and Rumsfeld have vanished, there still remains Cheney and his agenda.

But I one of those that dont think war will come, unless there is an accidental clash that might lead to war. But even if there is an accidental clash, its outcome can be easilly averted, should saner mind prevails. US has nothing to get from attacking Iran unless they want to make the Iranian people hate their guts and make them (government) even more relentless in pursuit of nukes. Likewise, Iran has nothing to gain from a war with US.

02-17-2007, 19:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
Commando Contributor Join Date: 01-01-05 Posts: 412 Country:	Will Bush attack Iran? The question that poses here is with one already failed war in Iraq. Will Bush go against public opinion and launch an attack against Iran. Or maybe even if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would Bush have enough suport to even support Israel. These are interesting questions and shows the power of the American people and the now democrats. What do you guys think? (my web) is Welcome To Cricket Comedy

02-19-2007, 11:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
speedlover1994 Patron Join Date: 01-23-07 Posts: 184	I doubt he will attack Iraq. With a year left, and Iraq still a mess, it looks like he's not even going to get to plan. (yay) __________________ "you have enemies, good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran's oil gambit - and potential affront to the US	Parihaka	The Iranian Question	2	10-15-2005 18:04 PM
The Iran, Pak, India... US Pipeline.	Asim Aquil	Political Discussions	0	08-11-2005 19:35 PM
US Encircling China?	Ray	Political Discussions	156	07-10-2005 22:04 PM
Dangerous Delusions About Iran	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	1	02-23-2005 04:55 AM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	14	11-20-2004 16:27 PM

02-19-2007, 13:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
execrable Patron Join Date: 02-16-07 Posts: 238	Trouble is, the rhetoric and build up seems to imply Bush is ready to open up a new front. Iraq and Afghanstan are still a mess but the talk of invading or bombing Iran is worryingly frequent and getting louder.

02-19-2007, 16:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
FSV *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 05-13-05 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 77	Attacking Iran without the prior approval of Congress, a formal Declaration of War, would result in the fastest Bill of Impeachment against Bush. Without that Congressional approval, Bush would be faced with military members refusing to obey the orders to attack. It would take an incident of “Pearl Harbor” or the “World Trade Center” level, instigated by Iran, to get the American Public’s & Congressional support for such an attack.

02-20-2007, 21:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
Galrahn *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-14-06 Posts: 405	I think people are missing what is right in front of them, and critical thought is being disregarded too easily. This messageboard is starting to follow the beat of the media editorial drum, and isn't taking an objective look at changes occuring. Rumsfeld is gone, yet there is very little acknowledgement of the obvious strategical changes in policy that have taken place since he departed. McCain sees it, he tried to explain it this past weekend, but the US media political mindset tripped up on him insulting Rumsfeld. They talked about the trees and missed the forest. I think it is interesting how Gates has changed US strategy, and yet people think the United States is going to attack Iran? Under Rumsfeld, I think it is a legitimate question whether the US would attack Iran, but under Gates I think the better question is will Iran attack the US? I wonder how long it is going to take media observers (and messageboard posters who repeat talking points of armchair generals trained in journalism) to note the Gates strategy has changed what Iraq is to Iran. Under Rumsfeld, Iraq was a tripline in strategic Iranian policy, under Gates, Iraq has become the bait in strategic Iranian policy.

02-20-2007, 23:33 PM	#15 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,127 Country:	Is there a list that some of you are aware of that shows the lists of the times, when the Congress allowed force to be used against another nation does wikipedia has list on this? ... thanks in advance @Galrahn I like what you wrote, quite clever. A point, if I may, although both Wolfwitz and Rumsfeld have vanished, there still remains Cheney and his agenda. But I one of those that dont think war will come, unless there is an accidental clash that might lead to war. But even if there is an accidental clash, its outcome can be easilly averted, should saner mind prevails. US has nothing to get from attacking Iran unless they want to make the Iranian people hate their guts and make them (government) even more relentless in pursuit of nukes. Likewise, Iran has nothing to gain from a war with US.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)