Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

stop, collaborate and listen
beetlebum Posted: Thu Feb 15 18:22:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  do you think that the USA is going to either
(a) bomb iran
-or-
(b) invade iran
-or-
(c) not bomb or invade iran

i'm not asking what you think we *should* do; i'm asking for us all to pretend like we all own crystal balls and can see the future.

of course, it's a worthless game in the sense that no one can see into the future, but that said, i really like playing futurology. at the end of every latin american politics class, we get to play that game. and it's fun. last week someone made the brazen claim that venezuela would become the new cuba. ooooooh, controversial. i love it.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 15 19:40:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think that it will be attempted, but I do not think it will actuatlly be done. I think that the Senate and House will actually prevent it and more military leaders will come out and say things like, "Um, we can't do it. The actualy means and organization are not there." But that's just me.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 15 20:12:28 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think that if anyone attacks Iran, it will likely be Israel, not the US, but I don't think it will happen.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 15 21:01:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  c

My gut tells me neither will happen. Congress is balanced out now between the two parties and too many republicans are weary of the admin's foreign policy to support what Bush might want to do there. Furthermore we don't have the troop strength now for an invasion. We'll threaten and posture, but ultimately I don't think it will amount to more than that. We have too many other fires in that part of the world to put out first.

but I've learned to never say never when it comes to american politics
:)


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 15 21:15:15 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I agree with addi.


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 16 08:32:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I agree with addi.


that can't be healthy

: )



*yes! GT back up again...i was getting the shakes


 
beetlebum Posted: Fri Feb 16 12:20:03 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i agree.

but no one i've encountered in england agrees with me. they're of the opinion that bush will not defer to congress because he is in so much trouble... and that he will do whatever he feel like he needs to do to get the job done.

but i'm glad to hear ya'll agree with me, because i was beginning to feel alone in my defense of the effective pressure that congress put on the president.




 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 16 12:26:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the fools!
people should know better than to disagree with you.

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 16 12:45:50 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>i agree.
>
>but no one i've encountered in england agrees with me. they're of the opinion that bush will not defer to congress because he is in so much trouble... and that he will do whatever he feel like he needs to do to get the job done.
>
>but i'm glad to hear ya'll agree with me, because i was beginning to feel alone in my defense of the effective pressure that congress put on the president.
>
I don't think Dubya will defer to congress, or the opinion polls as to the strategy he will use in the Middle East. Doing what you think is right means not following the whims of a fickle society or lunatic congress.
But whether or not he defers to pressure from congress has little to do with whether or not he will invade Iran and that was the question wasn't it ?

Then again, if Iran comes out next year brandishing a nuclear weapon, what do you think congress would do ?


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 16 16:04:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I think that if anyone attacks Iran, it will likely be Israel, not the US, but I don't think it will happen.

You know they wouldn't be afraid of doing it, probably with outside help.

Personally I'd see that as the most likely scenario, but not unless they're absolutely sure they're crippling iran / have enough back up afterwards.

But since they'd make themselves insanely impopular and it would sprout some extra terrorists in israel and beyond, I say if that doesn't happen (it won't probably anyway) nothing will in the close future.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 16 16:16:54 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>I think that if anyone attacks Iran, it will likely be Israel, not the US, but I don't think it will happen.
>
>You know they wouldn't be afraid of doing it, probably with outside help.
>
>Personally I'd see that as the most likely scenario, but not unless they're absolutely sure they're crippling iran / have enough back up afterwards.
>
>But since they'd make themselves insanely impopular and it would sprout some extra terrorists in israel and beyond, I say if that doesn't happen (it won't probably anyway) nothing will in the close future.
>
I can pretty much guarantee you that if Israel thought Iran had a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't wait for approval from anyone before they attacked. They would however, as a courtesy to their allied, notify them ahead of time so everyone could get all their ducks in a row.


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 16 16:25:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I can pretty much guarantee you that if Israel thought Iran had a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't wait for approval from anyone before they attacked.

I doubt that, just like I doubt iran would launch a nuke at isreal the second it rolls off the conveyor belt so to speak

The thing is I'm thinking they won't do it unless they're absolutely sure they take out everything and don't leave any chances for retalliation.

>They would however, as a courtesy to their allied, notify them ahead of time so everyone could get all their ducks in a row.

The US would know about it probably, but that'd be about it I'm guessing.


I wonder though just how far it would all go and how hard that first hit would be, but I say if they go for it they better to it right.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 16 16:32:58 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>I can pretty much guarantee you that if Israel thought Iran had a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't wait for approval from anyone before they attacked.
>
>I doubt that, just like I doubt iran would launch a nuke at isreal the second it rolls off the conveyor belt so to speak
>
Probably not, but Israel had no problems at all launching air strikes on Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80's without asking for anyone's approval.

>The thing is I'm thinking they won't do it unless they're absolutely sure they take out everything and don't leave any chances for retalliation.
>
They're pretty good at that.




 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 16 16:43:18 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Israel had no problems at all launching air strikes on Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80's without asking for anyone's approval.

Yes, but a lot has changed since the 80's.

>They're pretty good at that.

Can't really compare it to the nuclear reactor though, the situation and targets in iran would be vastly more complicated and I very much doubt wether israel wants its name on that one if it fails.

And if iran gets bombed, add a few %'s to the radical muslims.


I'm all for bombing iran's nuclear facilities by the way, as far as I can see every second it is postponed is 2 seconds too much.

Problem is: now it is iran, you still have north korea, and give it a few decades and china will start throwing shit at the fan and how will it be dealt with then.

My point being that I don't see any solution to this, if iran's nuclear capability is taken out it's a matter of time before the next bad guy raises its head.

Sooner or later somebody will probably push the button.

But that's too much off topic so never mind.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 16 21:31:16 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Israel had no problems at all launching air strikes on Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80's without asking for anyone's approval.
>
>Yes, but a lot has changed since the 80's.
>
>>They're pretty good at that.
>
>Can't really compare it to the nuclear reactor though, the situation and targets in iran would be vastly more complicated and I very much doubt wether israel wants its name on that one if it fails.
>
>And if iran gets bombed, add a few %'s to the radical muslims.
>
>
>I'm all for bombing iran's nuclear facilities by the way, as far as I can see every second it is postponed is 2 seconds too much.
>
>Problem is: now it is iran, you still have north korea, and give it a few decades and china will start throwing shit at the fan and how will it be dealt with then.
>
>My point being that I don't see any solution to this, if iran's nuclear capability is taken out it's a matter of time before the next bad guy raises its head.
>
The thing is, Israel wouldn't be looking at conquering and occupying Iran. They would only be interested in destroying their nuclear facilities. I don't think Iran's air defenses are close to what Saddam had.
The thing about China is much like the cold war. The people who control China's arsenal are not suicidal like the lunatics in Iran. They understand mutually assured destruction.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]