USA likely to go to war on Iran
 

Well it's started. A few days after the USa voted back in the worst president in world history, the rhetoric has started and it looks like sometime this year the USA will go to war on Iran.

Condelece Rice is over in Europe trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran. She is using the exact same words the USA used before they attacked Iraq. " We are not going to attack at this time". " This can be sorted out without force" etc etc etc.

Not satified with turning Iraq into a hell hole, it now wants to go after its neighbour and do the same. Hundreds of thousands of more innocents murdered by american soldiers, when the countru is again no threat to the USA.

This time however, it won't get the support of the UK and will distance itself further from Europe and the rest of the world.

I hope all the Americans who voted for this monster in George Bush are hanging your heads in shame. It must be embassessing being an American at the moment. :2 cents:

I noticed that too. The lingo is just the same "There are no plans on the table" etc..

Bush is the man. USA needs to kill some more fucking sandhahahahahahas :thumbsup

Bush is the man. USA needs to kill some more fucking sand nig gers :thumbsup

The Iranians just stated in the last few days no way are they ever giving up their nuclear programs.

That was pretty much the kiss of death for their future.

They're next by their own choosing unfortunately. And a lot of people will be killed and injured in the process.

It seems that Iran was in the works the whole time .We have them surrounded. Afghanistan and Iraq both bordering Iran.

I remember someone calling me an idiot last year for saying Iran would be declared the next target :upsidedow

Die Sand Nig gers Die :1orglaugh

fuck off you don't have enough troops

you fuck off, we do too, dont shit on our hobby

we live in very scary times

Rice talks language of diplomacy - but it has alarming echoes
By Julian Coman, Colin Brown and Rupert Cornwell

http://www.independent.co.uk
Large popular Broadsheet UK Paper
05 February 2005


On Iraq 'We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think one is possible' - 20 October 2002

On Iran 'The question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic means to do this' - Yesterday

She refused to utter the words "regime change". She declined to be drawn on future military adventures. But what Condoleezza Rice, the new US Secretary of State, did say yesterday in London was that Iranian "behaviour, internally and externally, is out of step with the direction and desires of the international community".

Asked directly whether the US planned an attack on Iran, Ms Rice said: "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic missions to do this." It was an answer that had a familiar ring.

A secular democracy is not about to be formed in Iraq. Even Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister, who Washington hoped would hold the balance of power, saw his coalition trounced. The theocrats of Iran, not the neo-conservatives of Washington, now appear to hold the keys to Iraq's future. For Ms Rice the problem of Iran has become more urgent than ever.

The focus for her and her hosts was Iran and its race to acquire the nuclear bomb that Saddam Hussein infamously never possessed. Ms Rice criticised the "unelected mullahs" who hold power in Iran and described Tehran's human rights behaviour as loathsome. The prospect of a nuclear Iran was "deeply destabilising" for the region. She said Britain and the US shared a "unity of purpose" on the dangers posed by Iran.

In his inauguration speech, President Bush denounced Iran as "an outpost of tyranny". But in the wake of the Iraqi elections and the emergence of a "Shia crescent" of countries, the mullahs' regime looks less of an outpost and more a capital of a remade map of the Middle East.

In Washington, overt (or covert) action is already being taken to help Iranian reformers.

Ms Rice said after her talks: "Let me state quite clearly what we hope to achieve concerning the Iranian regime. We have complete unity of purpose on a number of areas. First of all that Iran engages in activities that are destabilising to the region, particularly when it comes to support for terrorism.

"Secondly we are completely united in our view that Iran should not use the cover of civilian nuclear development to sustain a programme that could lead to a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranians ought to take the opportunity that's being presented to them to show that they are living up to their international obligations.

"Thirdly we are united in our view that the Iranian regime should have transparent relations with its neighbours in Afghanistan and Iraq.Fourthly we have all been concerned about the abysmal human rights record of the Iranian regime."

That was the plan all along. :thumbsup

Next it will be USA vs. the entire middle east.

were gonna fuck em up

Fuck it. Invade and get it over with. It's going to happen anyway, so they may as well do it. Bring back the draft to get the extra soldiers and attack!!! Who's going to stop the Big Bad Bush?

If someone's "political capital" runs out
we're gonna fuck up :2 cents:

theres an easy solution to this, iran wants nukes.. give them nukes, drop one every square mile.

why does the US have the power to tell whoever they cannot have nukes but the US can ?

arabs will never be able to unite. They argue too much between themselves. And the comment about Iran deciding their own fate because they said they'd never give up their nuclear weapons.. lets not kid ourselves, Bush was probably 'high fiving' cheney when he heard that. It just makes their whole campaign a cake walk.

I expect that the US will encourage the reformists in Iran, and there are a lot of them, to start something.

Then the US will have an excuse, going in to help others fighting for democracy.

They are sending a message "go for it, we will watch your backs"

Why? Because they want a progressive industrial economy with a modern energy supply?

Some voice he mistook for God told him so.:glugglug

did it ever occur to you maybe they are developing nukes to PROTECT themselves from an invasion like iraq.... and not to be a threat to anybody?

No one really knows. I personally think the US should arm them all with nukes. Then wait a while and let nature take it's course, the problems over there would clear themselves up if they had the power to kill each other off rapidly.

Its called a Draft :)

I don't think you fully understand the wide impact and long term effects of a nuclear war..

Show us some pussy please

For those who understand Russian: http://www.antimult.ru/antimults/ant...pizod/view.htm

But if you don't, you will understand it anyway (by picture) :winkwink:

No, because we kicked the Brit's ass not once, but twice.

It might be a harder sell even to a dumbed down American public, because Iran is a partial democracy and slowly moving closer to what we would recognize as a real democracy. And I'm sure that many people are ready to remind the rest that the last time the US interfered directly in Iranian affairs was to support the Shah: a rather unpleasant gentleman complete with CIA-trained secret police.

Still, I imagine with a little effort, the government could do a PR job on the US public. But that ignores the reality that Iraq has bogged down 150,000 troops and put a huge strain on our military and our economy. We are going to be tied up there for at least 5 years and possibly longer if we are not thrown out and compared to Iran, Iraq was a very soft target. I have no doubt the White House and others - http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1082.html - would like to act against Iran, but I seriously doubt it is feasible in the near future.

Except perhaps out of desperation. We don't know yet how much control we can retain in Iraq nor for how long. The tolerance of our own public to the cost of being there is also unknown, but obviously it will continue to decline and past a certain point there will be zero support for similar activities elsewhere in the region. Yet if we don't do something, Iraq and Iran will grow close, bringing a stability to the region that it hasn't known since the First World War, and meanwhile the warning signs are up for the regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We face the strong possibility that within 10 years the four biggest oil producing countries will all be governed by virulently anti-american regimes.

But what to do that will actually work for us? We need the oil so we cannot flatten the whole region and even the most enthusiastic flag waver surely doesn't imagine we can occupy the whole Middle East. Our activities over the last 80 years have all but guaranteed at least 20 years of mending fences, even if there were any sign (which there is not) that we intended to go that route. I think I hear the sound of chickens coming home to roost and as we try to divert them, the next 10 years should be interesting to say the least.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China... Russia... Good list however :winkwink:

P.S. That's why Russian parliament has increased the military expenditure in a few times (that's officially). I bet unofficiall amount is much bigger than it was announced... So, get ready for a global nuclear war in the nearest future. I hope everyone has its personal underground shelter in a good shape, since the nuclear winter will be veeeeeeery long (200...250 years I guess) :winkwink:

i hope the SISSY FUCKING DUTCH GOVERNMENT will get the FUCK away with sucking up to bush, goddamn the leaders in my country being such fucking wussies. I wouldnt be surprised if half of europe is going to help the US again to invade Iran, weak ass muthafuckers.... only countries who got it right in europe are germany and france.

By the way when the war in Iraq didnt even started yet, a specialist on TV said that this war was only about the oil, and that Iran is going to be the next target. He was right.

watch out, we have a smart one here :error

I'd love to see the Draft back, obviously Im too old to with you guys, but please keep us posted on how you do over there, I'll be here but with you in spirit :winkwink:

PS I'll look after your girlfriends while your gone :thumbsup

We'll see what happens

:1orglaugh

They'd be toast either way. If they have them they have a chance to defend themself at least.

you don't attack a country who potentially has nuclear weapons and Iran's army is 10 times stronger than the useless Iraqi army, which scattered around as soon as the war started

sometimes it seems that the average age of people posting here is 17, and it might be true

If Iran doesn't give up its nukes it will be attacked. Lets hope they give them up. I personally think Iran was the main target all along. They pose more of a threat as they were the ones the USA knew would have nukes soonest.

Ohh did I mention BUY OIL NOW LOL

what a fucking idiot!

This doesn't surprise me.
Well I have allways been told to quickly get up on the horse you have fallen down from.
Guess that is what Bush is during now with his huge failure in Iraq.
Did that guy ever succeed in anything?
Other than winning the election, where the vote's where not even counted correct.
From what I've been reading in some counties there where 125% of the people casting a vote? *LOL*

Bullshit. A few reason. Money, Troops, Iraq..

Syria soon as well. :2 cents:

Because the US isn't an agressive nation that attacks other countries for no real reason. :eyecrazy

same here :)

It's funny how people think that 18-25 is going to be the draft age if they draft again.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So if there is any proof they are developing nuclear weapons, there will be consequences that may involve war or at least a targetted attack of Iran's nuclear facilities, and I think many countries would support this, but only in the event that 100% proof can be found that they are developing nuclear weapons. The world isn't interested in getting involved in another WMD fiasco.

With that said, I think that Bush is itching to have any reason to go into Iran, because his ultimate goal isn't just removing nuke capabilities, but total regime change. I think many countries would support an attack on nuclear weapons facilities, but I don't think so many would support total regime change.