Iran is Next, here is why. Why don't people see this? Help!

[ohio_dem_52186]

Here are the facts:

From Bush:
“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” President Bush’s address to Congress on September 20, 2001.

From the State Dept. in 2000:
"Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have
blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000.”

From the State Dept. in 2003:
“Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003.” (Boy, that whole war on terror thing really worked out well..)

CIA in 2003:

“The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program...”

“Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran
move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles.”

“Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them—which it previously had manufactured.”

So, Iran is still the top sponsor of terror and has a big supply of WMD. They have oil too. Oh, and they have an opressive regime too. And real links to Al Qaeda too.

One thing we can say about Bush, he "stays the course" It seems logical (at least to Bush...) that Iran is next.

Any comments on the above or how to convince people that a war with Iran is a real possibility under Bush?

Thanks!

For links to the quotes and a more compete arguement on the above go here:
http://getthefacts.atspace.com/

[Erika]

1. Kerry Said Today That 35-40 Nations Are an Equal Threat....

to Saddam. We don't have the military available to fight all these nations, do we? The message is that Bush has screwed up our foreign policy to the point its the joke of the world.

[ohio_dem_52186]

3. Agreed, but what if we have the military available in the future?

Clearly, we are now stretched very thin. The possibility of it is a bit scary.

I guess I should have faith that Congress would stop him if he is really going to try that.

It still remains though, Iran, by all indications was a better target the Iraq ever was.

[atreides1]

6. The Only Way

To guarantee a military with the size to fight against 40 other countries is to reinstate the draft, and that will only work if
it starts now. And it will still take years to build up a force
that can fight multiple countries.

[ohio_dem_52186]

7. Not forty countries, just countries with crude.

I'm kind of being a devil's advocate here...

[atreides1]

20. One of Those Countries

Happens to be Russia, now it's my turn to play devil's advocate...

[FloridaPat]

2. It worked so well the first time, (Iraq) - why mess up a good thing.

[ohio_dem_52186]

11. Yes, it sure has gone smoothly.

[atreides1]

4. I Agree With You

But this time it isn't going to be over in a few months. There have already been "war games" played with this scenario in mind, the USAF
bombs Iran's nuclear plants, then it escalates.

This is what I see happening:
The USAF along with navy cruise missiles target and hit Iran's nuclear plants, not all the aircraft will be returning, as it is rumored that the Iranians have modern Russian AAA, and a professional
military, unlike Iraq.

Iran launches SSM's at all US troop locations in Iraq,
they porbably have a good line on the US Naval forces in the Gulf and have them targeted also. This will achieve at least two goals, one US ground forces in Iraq will be decimated and unable to launch
any kind of counter attack until they are reinforced, two US naval forces will have to pull back out of range of Iranian missiles, and will be unable to provide long term support for troopps on the ground.

Iran will not invade Iraq, what they will do is to prepare for another attack by the US, and will probably attempt to get diplomatic support from the UN, by pointing out that the US
launched an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, and that they
in turn attacked US forces in Iraq in self defense.

The US will now become the pariah, their staunchest ally the United Kingdom will not take part in this war, and the leading members of the EU with the assistance of the Russian Federation will be able to convince the Eastern European countries to remain neutral.

The US will have to make a choice, launch another air attack and hope that it can destroy the Iranian military, use tactical nuclear weapons, which will cause massive casualties on Iranian civilians as well as the miltary, or stand down and avoid anymore death. If the US seeks to continue the war will escalate to the point that all of the Middle East will be drawn into it, and this includes Israel.

Just a thought, what do you think?

[ohio_dem_52186]

8. Lord help us if Bush is crazy enough to order that!

I don't think that there is a high probability of Bush trying to really take out Iran. But based on his rhetoric and the facts, that is effectively what he is promising.

[atreides1]

18. If Bush Does It

Even God won't be able to help us, of course that's assuming that he would help in the first place.

[Erika]

9. I don't think we would fall for anymore attack against others

Iraq is leaving a very bad taste in everyone's mouth. Neither the American citizens or the world would buy another attack on a third world country.

[atreides1]

16. You're Right

WE would not fall for this, but the brain dead, march in lockstep, I just love George sheep would.

Those of us with the ability to think for ourselves, and the rest of the world won't buy it, but George's supporters will.

[Eye and Monkey]

10. you think Dubyabumbler's the kinda guy who's gonna stand-down?

Or is he the kinda guy that would say "NUKE 'EM" and laugh gleefully while he's doing it?

[atreides1]

17. No Bush Would not Stand Down

But it would be an option, an option that he won't take.

[Yupster]

13. I think it more likely that

Israel hits the Iranian nuke places.

I don't see us doing it.

[atreides1]

15. I Don't

Israel would have to fly over Iraqi airspace which is controlled by the US, which would point out that the US is involved.

And I don't believe that the Israelis, if they do this will all be coming home. Our Russian friends have been very busy selling arms and
equipment to the Iranians.

Besides if Israel launches an attack, it might be the catalyst that
starts WWIII.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Key Point - They have Oil

Some snips from a recent Toronto Star article, Crude Dudes, by Linda McQuaig:

From his corner office in the heart of New York's financial district, Fadel Gheit keeps close tabs on what goes on inside the boardrooms of the big oil companies. An oil analyst at the prestigious Wall Street firm Oppenheimer & Co., the fit, distinguished-looking Gheit has been watching the oil industry closely for more than 25 years.

SNIP

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

There's something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn't show the kind of detail normally shown on maps — cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq's oil.


SNIP

The possibility of Iraq's oil being reopened to private ownership — with the promise of astonishing profits — attracted considerable interest in the run-up to the U.S. invasion. In February 2003, as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held the world's attention with his dramatic efforts to make the case that Saddam posed an imminent threat to international peace, other parts of the U.S. government were secretly developing plans to privatize Iraq's oil (among other assets). A confidential 100-page contracting document, drawn up by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Treasury Department, laid out a wide-ranging plan for a "Mass Privatization Program ... especially in the oil and supporting industries."


Crude Dudes

In her article McQuaig mentions a Cheney speech to the London Petroleum Institute in which he muses aloud about, "Where is the oil is going to come from?" You can read an excerpt of that speech here:
www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

Note that it is a pdf file, so you need to have the Adobe Acrobat reader installed to view.

[prouDem]

12. War with Iran is 100%

When Bush couldn't find bin Laden, he gave up and went after Iraq.

Now that we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, he'll declare "Mission Accomplished" again, and invade Iran.

[Yupster]

14. Iraq is a huge mountainous

country. There is no way in the world the US is going to launch a ground invasion of Iraq. It is just a fantasy.

[jackstraw45]

19. You mean IraN, right?

We already invaded Iraq :)