Related Information to USA vs Iran

USA vs Iran - Page 12

The Iran War Buildup
by Michael T. Klare

If the record of Iraq (and other wars) teaches us anything, it is that such planning, once commenced, is very hard to turn around. Hence, we should not wait until after relations with Iran have reached the crisis point to advise against US military action. We should begin acting now, before the march to war becomes irreversible.
Ref. https://informationclearinghouse.info/article9544.htm

Iran USA

That is pure Barbra Streisand (BS). One of the major purposes of the Pentagon is to develop every conceivable scenario. Just because we have scenarios about how to invade and overwhelm London doesn't mean that there is the slightest chance that we will do it. We had all sorts of scenarios, contingency plans, and preparations for 50 years in readiness to deal with the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. but few of them were activated.

I love the very ambiguous language in the article:
There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran ...

Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans ...

That website is known for its strong conspiracy theory basis of life. Anything the US does to protect itself, to prepare to protect itself, or to even THINK of protecting itself, is evil. The folks there also hate, Hate, HATE President Bush. They would rather we submit to Islam, than that we do anything at all to prevent bad things from happening.

I think that they will rejoice when D.C. is a fireball.

USA vs Iran History & Civil Business Politics

IRAN TO RESTART NUKE PROGRAM

Iran pledged to restart part of its nuclear program on Monday after the European Union missed a deadline to deliver proposals for economic and political incentives.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200.lear050731.html

Page 12 Iran USA

Doesn't this sound all too familiar? Here we have an 'offer' given by the EU that is rejected by Iran. They (Iran) then remove the tape and start nuclear related building again. Today the watchdog agency makes a statement declaring that Iran should stop. Well, I do not think they will, so what does this mean... another 'Iraq-like' invasion?

Iran USA

EDITORIAL: THREATEN FORCE IN IRAN?

The only way to negotiate effectively with a rogue state is with the implicit understanding that the use of force is always a last resort. Short of such a threat, there are few tactics that could reasonably persuade a nation such as Iran to give up all plans for a nuclear weapons program.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...56066%2C00.html

USA vs Iran

An attack, sorry "counterstrike" on Iran was always on the cards. The Nuclear West cannot allow another country to obtain their "nuclear power". If a country owns Nuclear Power then it can make as a by product (without much trouble) nuclear weapons. The ownership of nuclear weapons, if you have little oil reserves ect... , brings you grea bargainging power on the world stage. I mean look at England. England has no oil and lots of strategic potebtial but because of the nuclear threat engalnd is left alone. knowing that this is all tha prevents mass destruction wouldnt you team up with the most powerful/powerhungery player at the time. look at it in rpg terms.

USA Iran - Page 12

Nighthawk, do you believe invading Iran is about keeping a lid on Islam? Was Iraq ever about that?

Islam is a religion, just as is Christianity, Hinduism, Budhism etc.

I think it is dangerous to use religion to justify extremist groups' actions. That is exactly what they want you to believe, that their agenda's are driven by religion because it is a powerful propaganda tool. The reality is they are driven by many other factors which the West conveniently choses to ignore.

It is common knowledge that Iran is virtually a Sharia state, but has Iran ever tried to impose it's beliefs or ideologies on the US or Europe? Let's get real about the issues here.

Iran is not the aggressor.

The whole nuclear debate is a bit farcical when you consider that the countries who are accusing Iran of attempting to cultivate such weapons are the most nuclear-armed in the world. That is gross hypocrisy which lead's me to believe the real motives for any invasion of Iran is not nuclear motivated, despite what politicians what people to believe.

Iran is using the whole nuclear threat to posture because it knows the US, Israel and other players are determined to invade.

USA Iran Politics Business Civil & History - Page 12

You will notice that I spoke specifically about that site.

I do believe that much of the Muslim world wants to impose Islam upon the rest of the world. About 10% of the Islam world subscribes to the extreme Wahhabist viewpoint, from which a very large proportion of the terrorists come. 10% of 1 billion gives us about 100,000,000 extremists.

Now, about Iran. Iran is a very well known backer and supporter of terror. They are a major funding source of groups such as Hezbollah.

Now, I will state that I am not in support of an "invasion" of Iran. I do expect that if they continue to work towards a nuclear weapon, that the US will either strike the facilities directly, or support Israel in striking it. A radical Muslim state with "the bomb" is not conducive to anyone else's security. It is very frightening to realize that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. A drastic change in government there could bring some very dangerous times for the rest of us.

The biggest danger, of course, is the thought that Iran would be willing to arm al Qaeda or a similar group with nuclear weapons. They have already shown their willingness to fund such groups.