Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

GabrielSteel

Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards declared as terrorists....is this further proof he wants to go to war with Iran before he leaves office ....more info on

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

What do others think? A war with Iran too would be very scary, not to mention what it could do to the price of petrol!:(

Moriarty

According to certain people on this forum during the summer of 2006, the US was going to be at war with Iran before the end of 2006.

Still waiting.

FYI

Moriarty wrote:

According to certain people on this forum during the summer of 2006, the US was going to be at war with Iran before the end of 2006.

Still waiting.

THANK GOD (if you're religious anyway)

Take out the Unspeak and you'd have got the picture too:

"Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.” "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article626630.ece

Moriarty

Just to be clear, I'm not cheering on a war here, I'm just saying that you'll get a lot of a certain perspective in this forum which doesn't necessarily equate 100% with what happens in the real world.

Mick86

War between the US/Israel and Iran seems inevitable given Iran's obvious desire to become a nuclear power and the equally obvious desire of the other side to stop them. But manufacturing a casus belli out of the Revolutionary Guards is not a necessary prelude to war and I doubt that the US can stretch to a third front at the moment anyway.

Unless Bush just nukes Tehran and finishes the job in one strike.

jank

The US Army are mightly over streached at the moment.
They have until March 2008 to complete the "surge" as then they will start running out of replacements. No way in hell are they to introduce anything like conscription.

What may happen is a quick air force attack by the IDF and US against military installation in Iran.

Mick86

jank wrote:

What may happen is a quick air force attack by the IDF and US against military installation in Iran.

The Israelis successfully messed up Saddam's nuclear effort at Osirak but in general an air assault on it's own has never really been successful.

Dr_Teeth

Osirak was built by the French as a civilian installation iirc.. you can bet that the Iranian installations were built with the possibility of an Israeli/U.S. visit firmly in mind. That, coupled with access to the very latest in Russian air defence toys leads me to think that any single air raid would be futile.

Kevster

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

johnnyskeleton

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

They're not ignorant they're just used to following the leader, and it's not democracy they are spreading it is capitalism. But the American people have been told that democracy is the opposite to communism for so long that they mistake capitalism for democracy.

But remember the wise words in south park: every election is a choice between a douche and a giant turd.

eoin5

They expected Iraq to be a 3 day war and theyre still at it. A war with Iran would be a total disaster. Iraq were expected to breeze through a destabilized Iran in 1980 with their huge armoured ground forces and they got caught up in an 8yr brawl. The Iranians know a lot more about solidarity and defending their nation than Iraq did.

Mick86

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Osirak was built by the French as a civilian installation iirc..

Of course it was.

Dr_Teeth wrote:

you can bet that the Iranian installations were built with the possibility of an Israeli/U.S. visit firmly in mind.

Naturally.

Dr_Teeth wrote:

That, coupled with access to the very latest in Russian air defence toys leads me to think that any single air raid would be futile.

but in general an air assault on it's own has never really been successful.

You didn't read that bit did you.

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president? ... ...is it really because 50%+ of the American population are ignorant? He stated, and I quote him: "We want to spread democracy in the Middle-East". These people don't want democracy. To them, the Americans are the terrorists, but in the atypical sense.

I've had it with this guy. I cannot wait for Hilary to gain control in a years' time.

He isn't your President so why do you care. And his successor won't be much different.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

They expected Iraq to be a 3 day war and theyre still at it.

The current war is a different war from the 2003 invasion. It's just being fought in the same location.

eoin5 wrote:

A war with Iran would be a total disaster. Iraq were expected to breeze through a destabilized Iran in 1980 with their huge armoured ground forces and they got caught up in an 8yr brawl. The Iranians know a lot more about solidarity and defending their nation than Iraq did

Iran won't be invaded as Iraq was in 2003. I think it will be attacked though, probably by air strikes, despite the fact that air strikes alone cannot defeat an enemy decisively.

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

He isn't your President so why do you care.

a) because people are dying because of his decisions
b) because he appears to be doing his damndest to drag us all into WW3
c) because he's - unfortunately - one of the most powerful men in the world (although this could be a complete front given that his capitalist backers seem to pull all the strings)
d) because most countries inexplicably seem to want to ape whatever America does, regardless of whether it's right/wrong, sensible/stupid, humane/evil
e) because oil prices are rising and air travel is inconvenient because of his actions
f) because he's not intelligent enough to realise that you can support America's rights and people and still disagree with some of the stupid decisions that he makes

NP14

You gotta look at the bigger picture here people

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370

irish_bob

johnnyskeleton wrote:

They're not ignorant they're just used to following the leader, and it's not democracy they are spreading it is capitalism. But the American people have been told that democracy is the opposite to communism for so long that they mistake capitalism for democracy.

But remember the wise words in south park: every election is a choice between a douche and a giant turd.

americans are ignorant , they are ignorant of world affairs , im not saying americans are stupid , there are no more stupid on average than most nations but for a moder western country, the usa,s population is phenomonally misinformed about issued outside thier border
this is is many ways due to thier media , in the usa news media is a business and in america waving the flag is always good for business which ties in with americans cheesey and shallow kind of patriotism
take fox news for example , it is impossible for the usa to ever act in a selfish or corrupt way with regards other nations in the view presented by thier journalists , any country or anyone one be it inside or outside america who criticises america is subjected to a with hunt and branded un american un patriotic or worse LIBERAL, the truth of how american foreign policy is conducted is covered up and all you get is demonising of opposing possitions to that of the bush administration
while fox news is the most extreme example of this kind of news media , the other news outlets still present a saintly potrait at all times of american foreign policy , the arabic channell AL JAZEERA for example is banned in the usa and i mean the english language one we get on sky which as anyone has seen is a perfectly credible news outlet , it just focuses more on mid east storys
while opinions more similar to say the bbc or chanell 4 news can be gotten in the usa , they are on tiny independant media outlets and are well hidden from your average american news watcher
in america , the only thing worse than supporting a bad president is not supporting what they call the commander in chief

Moriarty

irish_bob, you don't know what you're talking about. Al Jazerra banned in the US? What a load of arse, to put it politely.

Auron

Kevster wrote:

How did this guy become president?

Presidents are not elected. They are selected.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

The current war is a different war from the 2003 invasion. It's just being fought in the same location.

I see it as the same war thats evolved into something different. Its still the Coalition vs the Iraqis for the most part.

Mick86 wrote:

Iran won't be invaded as Iraq was in 2003. I think it will be attacked though, probably by air strikes, despite the fact that air strikes alone cannot defeat an enemy decisively.

This could be the case but it is a very dangerous game to play. It wouldnt be likely to bring about any regime change and given the history of interference the US have in Iran any attack could spark a big response from Iran and possibly other countries too.

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

a) because people are dying because of his decisions

They aren't your people.

Liam Byrne wrote:

b) because he appears to be doing his damndest to drag us all into WW3

He's had nearly 7 years and hasn't managed yet so he hardly will in the next 15 months.

Liam Byrne wrote:

c) because he's - unfortunately - one of the most powerful men in the world (although this could be a complete front given that his capitalist backers seem to pull all the strings)

Not really. He is potentially the most powerful man in the world but the system of checks and balances put in place to prevent a US President going loco and annihilating all his enemies in one go limit his power. In reality there are Colombian drug lords and Russian Mafiosi with more real power.

Liam Byrne wrote:

d) because most countries inexplicably seem to want to ape whatever America does, regardless of whether it's right/wrong, sensible/stupid, humane/evil)

Freedoms a bitch ain't it. Let's follow the Chinese model shall we?

Liam Byrne wrote:

e) because oil prices are rising and air travel is inconvenient because of his actions)

I'd blame profiteering oil companies and the 9/11 lunatics myself. The inconvenience of air travel is for YOUR security.

Liam Byrne wrote:

f) because he's not intelligent enough to realise that you can support America's rights and people and still disagree with some of the stupid decisions that he makes

So he's a dope. But he's a foreign dope. Worry about the clowns running our circus.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

It wouldnt be likely to bring about any regime change and given the history of interference the US have in Iran any attack could spark a big response from Iran and possibly other countries too.

You mean that countries that don't like the US, have attacked it in the past and are already fighting the US in Iraq anyway might be a little put out. How awful.:D

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

You mean that countries that don't like the US, have attacked it in the past and are already fighting the US in Iraq anyway might be a little put out. How awful.:D

I dont get what youre saying here. Are you saying that every country in the world doesnt like the US, has attacked it in the past and are fighting them in Iraq?

RedPlanet

I think he means that Iran has attacked the USA somehow.
Maybe, he believes they were in league with Arab sunni muslims that allegedly attacked america on Sept 11?
I don't know since he's not clear about what he says, and a lot of what he says seems very conspiratorial.....

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

I think he means that Iran has attacked the USA somehow.

The Iranian hostage crisis and the Hizballah suicide bombings in Lebanon in 1983 are just two events that spring to mind.

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe, he believes they were in league with Arab sunni muslims that allegedly attacked america on Sept 11?.....

Why does everyone seem to think that history began on Sept 11th 2001?

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't know since he's not clear about what he says, and a lot of what he says seems very conspiratorial.....

If you don't know why did you comment? But there's nothing conspiratorial about my post. The US has no real friends in the Islamic world so actually attacking Iran won't make the US situation any worse.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

I dont get what youre saying here. Are you saying that every country in the world doesnt like the US, has attacked it in the past and are fighting them in Iraq?

No. I'm stating the obvious fact that the US has no friends in the Islamic world. Attacking Iran won't make a whit of difference.

eoin5

If you were then you were being very vague.

What I was saying is that if the US attacks Iran there may be a response from both Iran and other countries. This includes both Islamic countries and others, especially those who have nuclear weapons or who have the capability to develop them (except for Israel of course).

The fact that they dont have any friends in the Islamic world would also add to the problem. They can no longer force regime change without invasion.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

If you were then you were being very vague.

Makes sense to me but maybe I'm just a little thick.

eoin5 wrote:

What I was saying is that if the US attacks Iran there may be a response from both Iran and other countries.

Undoubtedly.

eoin5 wrote:

This includes both Islamic countries and others, especially those who have nuclear weapons or who have the capability to develop them (except for Israel of course).

If you are talking nukes then only those countries with nuclear weapons matter. Nobody will have time to arm themselves with nukes and then respond. There are only 9 nuclear powers on earth- the US, UK, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea and France. At the moment none of these will go to war against the US for Iran. And certainly nobody will wave the nuclear stick at the US for the simple reason that it would invite annihilation on itself.

eoin5 wrote:

The fact that they dont have any friends in the Islamic world would also add to the problem.

Not really. Do you not see that the US does not have to worry about making enemies in the region because it has no friends there anyway.

eoin5 wrote:

They can no longer force regime change without invasion.

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

I see, so it's "joe pubic's" fault for not having the gumption to stick it huh?
Nevermind the bankrupt ideology of the neocons.

When did America ever cease backing their "anti-regime" movements?
Insofar as i can tell, it's been full steam ahead on that score for most a century.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

Makes sense to me but maybe I'm just a little thick.

The context was that if the US attacks Iran then there maybe a response from Iran or other countries. You then made a comment to the tune that I was only implying the Islamic nations which was stretching what I had said.

Mick86 wrote:

If you are talking nukes then only those countries with nuclear weapons matter. Nobody will have time to arm themselves with nukes and then respond. There are only 9 nuclear powers on earth- the US, UK, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea and France. At the moment none of these will go to war against the US for Iran. And certainly nobody will wave the nuclear stick at the US for the simple reason that it would invite annihilation on itself.

The reason that Iran may be attacked by the US (officially) is that they are not cooperating with the demands to halt enrichment. This would be a preemptive strike, just like Iraq was.

Suppose the attack goes ahead against the wishes of the world as a whole (probably including the US people). Of course none of the nuclear powers will declare war on the US but as I have said many of them may respond in some way, be it politically or in aid to Iran in some form. The reason the nuclear states may respond more strongly is that they have better ground to stand on economically and cannot be attacked preemptively.

The US has a long history of "one rule for us and another rule for them". The non-proliferation treaty is almost dead because of the US, so if they want to enforce it against the wishes of the world then the world may just respond by putting pressure on the US to hold their end of the bargain. That means they must make good faith efforts to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

What all this means is that the US themselves may come under the same pressure as they and others have put on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Mick86 wrote:

Not really. Do you not see that the US does not have to worry about making enemies in the region because it has no friends there anyway.

Invasions will be few and far between from now on. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the American public has no stomach for war any more. So it's back to proxy wars, financing anti-regime movements in enemy states and the odd bombing campaign.

So which is it? They either have friends or they havent. Will they not find it impossible to carry out a regime change because they have no friends to finance?

Liam Byrne

Bush is gone beyond a joke at this stage......because it worked in his favour for so long that any mere mention of "9/11", "terrorist", "Al-Quaida" - however contrived - would allow him to do what he liked and would have the yanks giving up their civil liberties for fear of being called "unpatriotic", he wants to label everyone as he sees fit and as suits his agenda.

I'd consider Bush a terrorist and a dictator - something he's supposedly trying to rid Iraq of* (excuse #5, I think, for invading Iraq, when the other 4 turned out to be lies).

He labelled Saddam with WMDs and even associated him with Al-Quaida in the American people's minds, just so that he could gain support for carrying out his plans......why do people accept his PR and labels but dismiss others....when's the last time you heard an Iraqi opinion or correspondent on the radio ?

The sooner this dangerous prat is out on his ear the better.....roll on Hillary or Osama or Obama or whoever.....

The War Against Terrorism

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

The Iranian hostage crisis and the Hizballah suicide bombings in Lebanon in 1983 are just two events that spring to mind.

If those things constitute in your opinion, an attack on America then whatabout when protesters here burned down the British embassy in 1972? Did Ireland attack Britain then?
The USA has therefore attacked China: they destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Thank god China has a steady hand and didn't unlease nuclear destruction on us all.

The relationship between Iran and the US starts before 1979 Mick86.
For example the fact that the US and Britian conspired to overthrow the elected government there in Operation Ajax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax in a move for oil, sorta soured people's opinion of America and Britain.

Arming proxies or allies as it were, to assist them in their battles is nothing out of the ordinary. It's ok for the USA to do it eh? Bad when the Iranians do. :rolleyes:

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

I see, so it's "joe pubic's" fault for not having the gumption to stick it huh?
Nevermind the bankrupt ideology of the neocons..

I'm not blaming Joe Public. He has been led to believe that the US is all-powerful and that the US can go to war without sustaining casualties. Because this is untrue then fear of public opinion will, in my humble opinion, prevent the US from launching any more invasions for a while.

Nor am I backing the Neo-con ideology. You are reading too much into a simple comment.

RedPlanet wrote:

When did America ever cease backing their "anti-regime" movements? Insofar as i can tell, it's been full steam ahead on that score for most a century.

What I meant was that there will be a suspension of conventional warfare and a return to or, more emphasis placed on if you prefer, backing anti-regime movements.

eoin5 wrote:

The reason that Iran may be attacked by the US (officially) is that they are not cooperating with the demands to halt enrichment. This would be a preemptive strike, just like Iraq was.

Granted. Of course, the US also wants to strike back for the Hostage Crisis humiliation and for Iran backing insurgents in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

eoin5 wrote:

many of them may respond in some way, be it politically or in aid to Iran in some form. The reason the nuclear states may respond more strongly is that they have better ground to stand on economically and cannot be attacked preemptively.

You mean like the US took so much notice of Russia, France and Germany before it attacked Iraq. All these states are as morally bankrupt as the US. In addition they have too much to lose by taking any action against the US other than empty platitudes on the floor of the UN.

eoin5 wrote:

the world may just respond by putting pressure on the US to hold their end of the bargain..

What all this means is that the US themselves may come under the same pressure as they and others have put on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

How?

eoin5 wrote:

That means they must make good faith efforts to rid themselves of nuclear weapons...

That statement is so naive it doesn't merit a response.

eoin5 wrote:

So which is it? They either have friends or they havent. Will they not find it impossible to carry out a regime change because they have no friends to finance?

They don't have friends, just people who need them temporarily to get their noses in the trough. Saddam Hussein is a prime example of this, Aerica backing him against Iran in the 1980s. In Middle eastern terms, The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But friendship is a fleeting thing in politics.

RedPlanet wrote:

If those things constitute in your opinion, an attack on America then whatabout when protesters here burned down the British embassy in 1972? Did Ireland attack Britain then?

Yes.

RedPlanet wrote:

The USA has therefore attacked China: they destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Thank god China has a steady hand and didn't unlease nuclear destruction on us all.

I think both sdes agreed it was a mistake. It's not as if the USAF has a particular reputation for accuracy. Ask the British Army.

RedPlanet wrote:

The relationship between Iran and the US starts before 1979 Mick86.
For example the fact that the US and Britian conspired to overthrow the elected government there in Operation Ajax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax in a move for oil, sorta soured people's opinion of America and Britain.

Yes, and Persia was invaded by Britian in the 1850s. You asked for an example of Iran attacking the US and I gave it to you.

RedPlanet wrote:

Arming proxies or allies as it were, to assist them in their battles is nothing out of the ordinary. It's ok for the USA to do it eh? Bad when the Iranians do. :rolleyes:

I'm just commenting on the state of play between the two sides. I don't believe I was critical or supportive of either side's policies.

eoin5

There is no group or combination of groups with enough numbers that would accept weapons from the US in Iran to effectively challenge the current regime. Operation Ajax and the Shah hasent been wiped from memory just yet.

Here is article six from the treaty which references where the US much make good faith efforts to disarm:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

If you say that this is naive then you may as well tear up the whole thing. If the US go around doing vigilante enforcement of the treaty (which the Iranians arent technically in breach of yet) and they choose to ignore article six then the rest of the world may call them on that. Of course they cant impose sanctions on the US but some of the countries I mentioned may impose some economic action themselves should the US continue down their slippery slope.

The US arent the only superpower in the world anymore. China have a similar stake in the world now and is growing at an enormous rate. There is a good relationship between China and Iran so if Iran is attacked China has a lot to lose.

Another topic worth looking at is the dissent within the military should an attack be ordered without the support of the US people.

I'm not saying any of this will happen but its possible. Its all ifs, butts (teehee ) and maybes.

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

Logos

It doesn't matter because there is very little Iranian oil on the market now anyway. The only serious military option is a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities because conventional options do not adequately cover off the risks involved with missing something. A strike would be a 'one hit' option and it would not be acceptable to leave any significant Iranian nuclear infrastructure in place.

Having said all of that it would be politically very difficult to exercise a nuclear strike option. So close to Iraq and on the back of this whole sub-prime issue in the markets. Also the russians are rattling around in their bears lately and once again threatening Western liberty. But the price of defiance is sometimes high and freedom must be protected.

Will be an interesting few months.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

There is no group or combination of groups with enough numbers that would accept weapons from the US in Iran to effectively challenge the current regime. Operation Ajax and the Shah hasent been wiped from memory just yet.

I'd start with the 5 million Iranian Kurds who don't like their masters, myself.

eoin5 wrote:

Here is article six from the treaty which references where the US much make good faith efforts to disarm:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.".

Well now that makes all the difference. I'm sure as soon as the US is compliant with Kyoto, it'll get rid of all those nasty nukes. And naturally everybody else will scrap theirs.

eoin5 wrote:

If you say that this is naive then you may as well tear up the whole thing. If the US go around doing vigilante enforcement of the treaty (which the Iranians arent technically in breach of yet) and they choose to ignore article six then the rest of the world may call them on that.

And the US will care because...?

eoin5 wrote:

Of course they cant impose sanctions on the US but some of the countries I mentioned may impose some economic action themselves should the US continue down their slippery slope.

Highly unlikely. No country is likely to endanger it's own prosperity by launching an economic war with the US. N Korea definitely dare not. Pakistan and India will not want another Islamic Nuclear Power on their doorstep. Russia probably doesn't either.

No, there would be loads of humming and hawing in the UN, people waving placards from Dublin to Dubai. And that's about it really.

eoin5 wrote:

The US arent the only superpower in the world anymore. China have a similar stake in the world now and is growing at an enormous rate. There is a good relationship between China and Iran so if Iran is attacked China has a lot to lose..

China has a lot more to lose if it takes any serious stance against the US.

eoin5 wrote:

Another topic worth looking at is the dissent within the military should an attack be ordered without the support of the US people.

The Military Command doesn't do dissent. And as long as the casualties are minimal, as they would probably be so long as a ground invasion does not occur, the US public will support the action. The US real problem is that apart from Israel, nobody is going to actively join in this time.

eoin5 wrote:

I'm not saying any of this will happen but its possible. Its all ifs, butts (teehee ) and maybes.

Of course, which of us has a crystal ball.

eoin5 wrote:

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

One word.

Tibet.

Mick86

Logos wrote:

The only serious military option is a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities .......................................................................But the price of defiance is sometimes high and freedom must be protected.

I'm going to enjoy being free during the nuclear winter.

eoin5

The Kurds make up 7% of the Iranian population. They have it really tough but even if you got them another 3% through other groups it isnt going to break the regime.

The US will care if major countries start refusing to do business with them, and I do believe that it is very possible for China to do so.

They do not have all that to lose by taking a strong stance to the US and to secure their growth it may even become necessary. Theyre already at serious odds. Consider Canada, the USAs friendly neighbour to the north. The US hardline stance in NAFTA sees China mop up nicely. Iran is a focal point in this bipolarisation, so I expect a strong show of Chinese solidarity with the Iranians.

My guess is that the US public would not support another attack on Iran, I trust in that they have learned a little in the past 5 years.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

I'm going to enjoy being free during the nuclear winter.

Cheerleading for the use of nuclear weapons?

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

The Kurds make up 7% of the Iranian population. They have it really tough but even if you got them another 3% through other groups it isnt going to break the regime.

It doesn't have to. The Kurds are not the only ones opposed to the Iranian regime. If one group starts to cause real problems others will follow. And they don't have to overthrow the regime, just cause a little chaos.

eoin5 wrote:

The US will care if major countries start refusing to do business with them, and I do believe that it is very possible for China to do so. .

Economies are inter dependent. So those countries that refuse to do business with the US will find the US refusing to do business with them. I would say that the country to suffer least would be the US.

eoin5 wrote:

They do not have all that to lose by taking a strong stance to the US and to secure their growth it may even become necessary.Theyre already at serious odds. Consider Canada, the USAs friendly neighbour to the north. The US hardline stance in NAFTA sees China mop up nicely. Iran is a focal point in this bipolarisation, so I expect a strong show of Chinese solidarity with the Iranians..

If you say so.

eoin5 wrote:

My guess is that the US public would not support another attack on Iran, I trust in that they have learned a little in the past 5 years.

The US public won't know until the pictures appear on Fox News.

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

Cheerleading for the use of nuclear weapons?

You don't do irony, do you?

eoin5

I think that the US would suffer much more from any economical action taken against it. The US is totally dependant on other countries to maintain any sense of the American dream. China can continue growing even if it orders every company that supplies American companys to stop doing so, but it would be a huge blow to the coffers of corporate America and would probably cause a stock market crash.

If the US armed the Kurds and got them to start a little chaos it would become the greatest atrocity this century so far. NATO would probably be called in to stop the massacre, and then things get very complex. Its not going to happen.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

I think that the US would suffer much more from any economical action taken against it. The US is totally dependant on other countries to maintain any sense of the American dream. China can continue growing even if it orders every company that supplies American companys to stop doing so, but it would be a huge blow to the coffers of corporate America and would probably cause a stock market crash.

I think I get the picture. I think you're wrong but repeating the smae thing over and over won't change my mind.

eoin5 wrote:

If the US armed the Kurds and got them to start a little chaos it would become the greatest atrocity this century so far.

The century is young yet.

eoin5 wrote:

NATO would probably be called in to stop the massacre, and then things get very complex. Its not going to happen.

What, like NATO intervened in Rwanda, Chechnya, Darfur, Bosnia and Algeria.

Logos

My post was a little facetious but the original thread here is about Bush declaring the Iranian 'revolutionary guard' as terrorists. Well the evidence does seem to support this as these guys have been involved with taking hostages, supporting Hezbullah and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Does the fact that Bush may denounce this organisation as terrorists mean that Iran will be nuked/invaded etc? Well who knows, after all there was no logic about the invasion of Iraq as such - basically that was about O.I.L. (oil, israel and logistics) and not a shred of evidence for 'WMD' was turned over in the final analysis.

I suppose the difference now is that Iran actually does have a chance at becoming a nuclear (weapon) power and I think anybody with perspective should be very worried about that prospect. Frankly we depend on the US to sort out their (and by extension our) interests globally.

eoin5 wrote:

Just a little aside: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reckons that our only hope (for survival in general, not just Iran) is that China organises a group of countries to counter the US aggressiveness.

Do you really believe (or follow others who believe) that either
a) we need defending from America or
b) even if we did that China would be the people to do it???

My god what planet do you hail from?

I think the bottom line is that the RG is a terror group intent on spreading revolutionary Islam through violence....enough said.

eoin5

Logos wrote:

Do you really believe (or follow others who believe) that either
a) we need defending from America or
b) even if we did that China would be the people to do it???

My god what planet do you hail from?

Yes, yes, and earth.

I really dont want to get into it on this thread though. If you want to discuss it you can start a thread called: "America vs everyone else" and I'll partake

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

Yes, yes, and earth.

Incredible.

jonny72

Logos wrote:

I suppose the difference now is that Iran actually does have a chance at becoming a nuclear (weapon) power and I think anybody with perspective should be very worried about that prospect.

Why worried though? are we worried that North Korea may have nuclear weapons right now?

I find it very very odd that more than a few people seem incredibly concerned that Iran may get nuclear weapons whilst at the same time they don't seem to be very bothered that North Korea may have reached that stage.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

Why worried though? are we worried that North Korea may have nuclear weapons right now?

There is no MAY about N Korea having Nukes.

jonny72 wrote:

I find it very very odd that more than a few people seem incredibly concerned that Iran may get nuclear weapons whilst at the same time they don't seem to be very bothered that North Korea may have reached that stage.

The concern is that the Iranians are possibly crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

There is no MAY about N Korea having Nukes.

So this is more worrying than Iran possible having nukes in 8 years.. or no?

The concern is that the Iranians are possibly crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons.

The concern is that the Iranians are possible crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons?.. hilarious, I had to reread that, forget the credible and proven threat of Saudi and Pakistani extremists, no I prefer the one about Cuba, oh I mean Iran, the single basic easily identifiable enemy that the idiot redneck warmongers can recognise.

RedPlanet

Firstly, there exists no proof whatsoever that Iran are even considering weaponising nuclear power.
Secondly, the Iranians already have a plethora of weapons that they are not "crazy enough" to use.
Thirdly, the Iranians do not have a history in modern times, of waging war.

The Americans on the other hand, do all 3.

Now who's the biggest threat peace?

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Firstly, there exists no proof whatsoever that Iran are even considering weaponising nuclear power.

Thats irrelevant to the need to stop nuclear proliferation.

Secondly, the Iranians already have a plethora of weapons that they are not "crazy enough" to use.

With respect,nuclear weapons are probably the most potent of virtual weapons to have.You don't need to use them physically in warfare as you know to have the benefit of them.

Thirdly, the Iranians do not have a history in modern times, of waging war.

Thats arguable.

The Americans on the other hand, do all 3.

Thats also arguable.They've waged conventional wars but no nuclear war obviously in 62 years.You can't uninvent nuclear and you can't trust others to disarm their holding of that technology.It's therefore been a deterrant for 62 years.

Now who's the biggest threat peace?

I'm afraid I don't share the implied trust of Iran with nuclear.I wouldn't like the influence they might want to extend with it.I'd prefer if they kept their sphere of influence on lifestyle and politics to themselves.
As for America's-whilst I'll mostly oppose war,I'm too happy with my capitalist lifestyle to reject American influences for now thanks.
I'll continue to reject Iranian influences completely.Thats a personal choice and I'd imagine a popular one.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

So this is more worrying than Iran possible having nukes in 8 years.. or no?

N Korea has ahad nukes for many years. A wonderful achievement for a country that cannot manage to feed it's own people but there you go. They seem to like sabre-rattling but as long as the US and S Korea keep sending the rice that's about it. That said WMDs in the hands of Third World Peasants is always a worry.

jonny72 wrote:

The concern is that the Iranians are possible crazy enough to use their nuclear weapons?.. hilarious, I had to reread that, forget the credible and proven threat of Saudi and Pakistani extremists, no I prefer the one about Cuba,.

The Saudis and Cuba do not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does but at the moment both the Pakistani and the Saudi governments are allies of the US. It is a worry that Islamic extremists may take power in Pakistan and gain control of the nuclear arsenal. However that's a secondary concern. The primary concern is the Iranians, who are not well disposed to the west and who are probably developing nuclear weapons.

jonny72 wrote:

oh I mean Iran, the single basic easily identifiable enemy that the idiot redneck warmongers can recognise.

Just because you have issues with the US doesn't make the Iranian regime any more benign.