I just came across this a few mins ago on
http://www.thepetitionsite.com and since noticing the high activity about the war in Iraq, I wondered how people felt about this?

"As unbelievable as it may seem, the White House has given a "prepare to deploy" order sending the USS Eisenhower to the Persian Gulf, and leaked reports are warning that the Bush Administration is making further preparations for a military strike against Iran.

Is this simply an escalation of the administration’s saber-rattling? An attempt to provoke Iran and create a Tonkin Gulf-like rationale to justify military strikes? Or is this actually the first step of planned military action against Iran, with the administration’s declarations of attempted diplomacy just as phony as they were before the Iraq war? "

 

My first guess would be just another form of intimidation to keep Iran from continuing it's public refusal to comply with our warning not to develope nuclear weapons. I doubt at this point that the US will send in troops because if it looks like Iran is even close to developing nuclear weapons Isarel will nuke them first.
But I'll also have to admit I'm not too good at outguessing Bush and his boys.

 

hmmm so if Iran don't comply on that issue, and the US do send troops in, doesn't that put the US in a sticky situation - that they'll be true instigators?

It's just the idea of the US invading Iran annoys the hell out of me because things are bad enough with US troops in Iraq. And I had the feeling even before Iran announced plans for a nuclear programme that the US invaded Iraq as a back door to Iran.

 

Yeah, I think you may have been able to kick that out of the back of my head. If we do invade Iran it would be pretty apparent that the USA is really interested in a middle east take over. I'm not sure we are but being a current member of NASA (not absolutely sure of anything)wed have to expose ourselves if we did.

 

So, let's see....USS Eisenhower in the Gulf...US troops in Iraq....US troops in Afghanistan.

Looks like you got them surrounded! :shock:

 

Skeptic that I am, I'm not confident that we're being told the truth about Iran's nuclear program. As usual, the Bush Administration is inconsistent, in that it appears to have to problem with nuclear weapons in the possession of India, Pakistan, and Israel. Pakistan, in particular, is an unstable regime that could easily arrange to supply a terrorist organization with a usuable weapon. There is evidence that they have already given or sold nuclear weapon technology to others. Where is our outrage over that?

I also think we have lots of time to pursue diplomatic solutions to these issues. But the Bush MO, inexplicably, is not to talk to regimes we don't like. Their idea of "diplomacy" is to say, through some third-party intermediary, that we'll start talking with them after they first commit to doing everything we demand of them. Sure, that'll work.

Curiously enough, Iranians don't like being pushed around by the U.S. They've been there. What part of "sovereignty" does Bush still not understand?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live in a world full of nuclear weapons. But I also don't want to live in a world where we have lots of nuclear weapons and nobody else does.

I'm not in favor of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, and I hope that's not what's in the offing.

 

One thing that the nuclear countries that you mentioned haven't got is a president who threatens to quote: "Wipe Israel off the face of the earth"

Provocative??

 

I don't know about war w/Iran.

When people ask now about Why we're in Iraq, and not dealing with no. korea, it seems to me that 'we do what we can.'

I think No. Korea is unbelieveably unstable & the 6 party talks are working. China stepped up to the plate and that directly effects No. Korea's economy. Japan did as well. I think the 6 party talks are much better than unilateral. The other countries can all too easily say, 'well, we didn't broker the deal, so if it falls apart, you're on your own.'

That said, I think we're in Iraq because it was a problem area and it's one that we can deal with. I'm hoping that Iran doesn't snub it's nose at the GLOBAL request that it halt it's pursuit of nuclear technology. What actually happens remains to be seen. But I don't think our armed forces are spread too thinly to deal with another conflict. It will just be handled another way.

 

war with Iran.

A lot of stories that hit the media,, are not complete.. I feel that it is a show of power. I do think it will soon go away due to the outcome of the election. Another thing was that Iran had some War games planned..I think for right about now.
I feel that if he tried to make a move on Iran, the american people would impeach him for sure..

 

Our armed forces have no real judgement of our military power anyway. Two simple jets (b2 stealth bomber) could end the war in Iraq in a hearbeat. I often wonder why we don't use them and just end our shit there. Iran might be a little more trying when it comes to a full scale war, but if things got too bad, we could just use air power, like we should always use, since hardly anybody on the globe can compete with it.

 

war with Iran.

Several months ago,, when the Iran nuclear thing was hot.. Bush made the statement that Iran was increasing its enrichment ability, and they were at 80% or so, along with a lot of other things.. This hit almost all the papers.
What did not reach the papers was a statement, in the form of a letter to the US government flatly stating that they had not told the truth.. This was from the world agency that heads up the atomic energy group. and inspects quite often.. (does not monotor, like the USA wants) Iran will not allow it to be monotoed. I will find the letter and post it... they said that Iran was at 3-8% level.. And had to be at something like 80% to produce weapons grade uranium

 

Buh?

What?

How?

 

Tandren, that's what I'm talkin' about! A few strategically placed,



I think the reason we won't do it in Iraq, or probably anywhere, is that we'll be looked upon as 'killing innocent civilians.'
*insert eye roll here!*

How many people and how much money do we have to spend to pick through each of these neighborhoods trying to sort the good from the bad!

I figure if we turn Iraq into a glass factory, the 'innocent civilians' in Iran will head out quick.

 

Some interesting view - I'm glad I posted it now.
If I remember from school history on WW2 the US (and co) imposed a restriction on Germany's army.... I'm not sure if it's fact, but wouldn't the US's army be considered as one of the biggest in the world? Maybe I'm more aware of what's happening, but it seems like they have grown so much more in the last few years (incl pre 2001) . Should a restriction be put on the US similarily as the US & co did on Germany?

Probably not completely an accuracy, but my mind is working on a few levels...... and it seems that the more "national security" becomes a greater interest to Bush admin, the more hostile that same cluster seems to be and more brazen they get.

 

The thought of using nuclear weapons is monsterous.

 

YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS........

 

No, but it's certainly cost effective.

 

Now YOU can't possibly be serious.

 

If I was president (ha) when the 9-11 guilt was proven, there would have been no argument, warning or negotiation. Several places I could name would have ceased to exist, along with a warning that ANY ATTACK ANYWHERE on
the US or its allies would be met with the same retaliation. Go ahead, hate me, write nasty posts.

 

........I love the smell of fall-out in the morning.......
........smells like..........lunacy!