us invading iran?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/


this is god damn amazing

yeah, america should invade Iran now and loose, it would be amazing :) i would love that... i even love how they are loosing in Iraq... i hope they back off afterwards so ashamed of themselves that they never attack anybody again, so the peace on earth can finaly prevail :D

The US won't invade, although I bet Georgy-boy will sanction bombing raids on Iran's nuclear facilities before he sinks into oblivion.
Always one to go out with a bang is George.

that could be a very loud bang if they do anything like that.

I think it's just talk. N. Korea was testing missiles around the seas of Japan(if I recall) several years ago or something and there was all this news about how N. Korea was looking into the same thing(nuclear weapons) and there was talk we might be going to N. Korea.

Although, I actually thought when the US military went to war with Iraq that Iran was going to be a "pitstop", but that never happened.

I think El Baradei will talk some sense in getting Iran's gov't to comply with UN's nuclear restrictions. It might also be just a ploy for Iran to trade their "plans on Nuclear Energy" for trade with the UN and get the US to maybe lift sanctions on Iran and allow them to trade with the US and other countries the US has close ties with. I think that's what really is the issue here. Who knows? We may see US companies help rebuild their oil fields and whatnot.

I don't expect anything to happen. I'm quite confident the UN & Iran will settle this peacefully within the next month.

God, i hope not. I think the world would be ready to invade us. The world is against this war for the most part, especially with bush's lack of credibile reasons for it. It could really stir things up in the middle east, more than they r.

haha, i think the adminstration and congress shouldn't do anything. they're on a 2 week vaca now..they'll do a better job by not touching or doing anything..

I think the US should lift sanctions and urge Iran to keep investing money in alternative energy sources like they have been instead of pursuing nuclear enrichment.

It takes 2 to tango, both sides have to be willing to work together.

I think the strong arm tactics of the U.S, and by that i mean, telling a country a country they can't have nuclear energy even for non-military use, will that work any longer?... especially when we are promoting them all over the states here.That's what should worry us. Will telling a country "yes, freedom, freedom, but you can't do this b/c we say so"..will that work in this modern era?

Well, so far it's worked in dealing with North Korea(I say "so far"). Although it doesn't win any fans, do I think the US is capable of using intimidation of war as a means of forcing a country to comply with the UN? Without a doubt, but I don't agree with doing things that way. The problem is not "nuclear energy" exactly: the problem is their dual use of nuclear energy and their interest in enriching uranium and the threat of another country making nuclear weapons in the middle east.

I don't know if we can use the term "modern era", US and Iran all in the same sentence just yet. Iran is still heavily influenced by religion(not to say that the US isn't, but we all saw what happens when you convert to christianity over there...).

Clinton used bombing raids on Iraq when Iraq refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, so it's not totally out of the question for the US to use force if Iran refuses to comply with the UN.


The US Gov't can't and never will win any respect. If they act on dictators like Hitler, then we are war mongers. If we stand back and let the UN fuck up everything(like Kosovo & Rwanda), then we are "lazy" for not doing anything. But that's the price to pay when you're the most scritinized gov't expected to be "perfect" and please everyone.

I'm not a fan of the Gov't by any means, but I do think some hatred of the US Gov't is a little unjust at times.

well, if they did invade iran it would only be 5 years overdue.

they already have.

link to scott ritter speech

So, its ok for the US to have nukes but not any developing nations?

America has long since given up on what's fair and legal. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and revenge attacks on civilians in Iraq are evidence of that.
Iran is next on Bush's list. But he wont send ground troops in - the Iranians will fight back, unlike the Iraqi army.
He'll order airstrikes from 2 miles up just before the next election, then he'll run for Crawford, hunker down in his fallout shelter, and blame the ensuing carnage on whoever follows him into the Whitehouse.

Sy Hersh knows. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact

yeah but with which troops??? There aren't that many spare soldiers left for that kind of operation unless..... drafting/conscription? Now that's leaving w. a freaking huge bang!!!

And with Canada more aligned w. Dubya's policies.... I'll stay in Denmark for longer than expected!

I'm not sure "ok", but the US is looked at as the world leader by default.

It certainly isn't any better having more nations join in on the Nuclear Arms battle.

The Cold War is over...no need for Nukes. Unfortunately, some nations have them still just to make sure nobody gets out of line.


It's sad, but what other choice do we have?

Nothing will happen...trust me. Read the news and get some background info on where Iran is at economically and you kinda get the picture.

This is about the US's sanctions that are keeping Iran from developing into it's own nation.

This is the same thing that's going on with N. Korea...the same thing.

Don't worry, no war will happen.

Iran is just threatening to build Nuclear Energy to scare the UN & US into making a deal to help Iran and keep them away from Nuclear Weapons.

Iran has no use for nukes. They are already probably one of, if not, the most advanced in the progression of alternative energies(wind).

This from the BBC interview with Hersh:

"Hersh himself downplayed the prospect. In an interview with the BBC, he said the Pentagon had told the Bush administration initially that a nuclear attack was the only way of guaranteeing success: "Nobody was advocating it, they were just saying a 100% guarantee. Where it becomes interesting, the joint chiefs, in one of its subsequent papers, wanted to withdraw that option because of course it's madness, a nuclear weapon in the Middle East to an Arab [sic] Muslim country, my God. And the White House won't withdraw. "
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wo...st/4895212.stm

Where is the logic in threatening a country with nuclear strikes if you are trying to encourage that country to step back from building its own nuclear deterrent?

I think it's wrong and certainly won't win any friends this way around the world.

It's exactly how we handled N. Korea and Iran isn't even close to the power that N. Korea is. The logic is this: Iran knows it cannot defend itself if the US attacked. So, if they don't want to be attacked, they should abide by the UN rules.

Like I said, nothing's going to happen. Iran KNOWS they can't defend themselves in a war with the US. It's just Iran's way of getting the world to take notice of sanctions put on them that is killing their country.