Rumors of War: Is Bush Gearing Up to Attack Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    So, who benefits? Once again it is our 'friends' the Israelis and Oil. America has no legitimate interest here. The top 16 Intelligence Agencies, is their NIE, all concur that Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program (several years ago). They are no threat to us.

    Before we attacked Iraq, Israel and the American Israeli lobby tried desperately to talk the Defense Policy Board into attacking Iran instead. But, Cheney shot it down. He said that the case for Hussein was already well underway.

    I would support helping Israel defend itself, if they were actually being attacked, and needed our help. But, this strategy is from the right-wing extremists in Israel. Spending billions of dollars, and an unknown number of American casualties, just to further Israel's current aggressive policies, is insane. Even a majority of Israelis do not like the policies of the current regime. They are just pouring fuel on the fire, and pushing any change for peace in the region, further and further away. But, the American lobby is powerful. As soon as someone challenges them, their attack dogs come running.
     
  2. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #2
    The US will not attack Iran before Bush leaves office. Don't loose any sleep over it. :)
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    And you know this how?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7440472.stm
    Sure, no chance of Bush and Olmert falling into this one, is there?
     
  4. savanahrose macrumors 6502a

    savanahrose

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Location:
    greer SC
    #4
    I am afraid that he is stupid enough to do that. Especially if he sees Obama winning in the polls.
    He wouldn't even think about our military in the endeavor. Which by the way (in my own opinion) is being spread too thin now. Could the draft be brought back for this?
    Heaven help us and our military. Didn't I hear that they were pulling about 4000 troops from Iraq? Could it be so that they can go home and recoup and then be shipped to Iran?
     
  5. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    I'd just heard this too on the news. I think it is foolish to believe that Bush wouldn't attempt to put something into motion. The fallacy is in believing that Bush is operating from a series of poorly conceived plans and not a disturbingly flawed sense of judgment and hardened ideological mindset. The judgment is still in the White House running the country.

    ~ CB
     
  6. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #6
    Can we put bush on trial for crimes against humanity? Seriously, all he wants is to attack the middle east.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    I'm sorry - but with what exactly are we going to attack with?

    Without actual soldiers - you can't do much but piss a lot of people off.
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    Tactical nuclear weapons, particularly the good ol' neutron bomb.

    Remember that one???
     
  9. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #9
    I have read several reports, which say that the Iranian Guard barracks and bases are primary targets. How in the hell would attacking their military be consistent with just removing their nuclear threat? The answer is easy; It wouldn't. However, it would be a precursor to a regime change. We must assume that anything coming from the WH will be lies.
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    There has been a danger of Israel attacking Iran for the last 20 years. I can't see this as the first time they've asked for help. Also, attacking Iran won't save the Bush presidency. GW doesn't even see his numbers are low, so why would he need to save anything? Besides, aren't you anti-nukes anyway?

    Something afoot? Hmmm. Something smells a foot maybe.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    The only ways for us to do it would either be with nuclear weapons, or starting up a draft again. Either of which would make a lot of people mad.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    What exactly are you insinuating here? What bearing does being "anti-nukes" have on the question? Please explain yourself.

    I wouldn't put it past Bush to start something in Iran with an air attack on the Quds Force in support of an Israeli attack on Nantaz. Bush is not exactly famous for having - or even wanting - an exit strategy. He's quite happy to leave his messes for others to clean up.
     
  14. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    I dont know where bush thinks he is going to get the money/troops/justification for that...?
    wait he doesn't need any of those things; all he needs is to say "9/11...terror...protect america..." and he's done. :mad::mad:
     
  15. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #15
    I'm sure the Air Force can handle Iran just fine.
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    So the basis of this argument is because Olmert and Bush are deeply unpopular they need to start a war in which tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people could die. Yeah, that ought to get people cheering their names :rolleyes:

    Sabre-rattling is one thing, but both the Israeli and American populace have woken up to this now.
     
  17. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #17
    The process of leading the country to war with Iraq took months. I think the same process may be repeating itself with Iran, but the goal is most likely somewhat different. Rather than leading to another occupation, I think Bush would instead selectively bomb nuclear sites. Whether or not these sites were actually being used to further Iran's nuclear ambitions would be beside the point; Bush's main objective would be to further entrench this country in a war that the majority of its people no longer want. These attacks would also be done before November and would be used, like the timing of the Guantanamo terrorist trial, to grow support for McCain in the general election.
     
  18. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    What did Einstein say? Oh yeah.

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    Thank you sooooo much Mr. Bush.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    Sadly, worryingly, there are many in the Pentagon and the Administration who think just like you.
     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #20
    If Bush is planning to attack Iran, yours is the most sensible explanation of why and how.

    Which isn't to say it's not problematical. Start bombing Middle East countries again, and just watch the violence in Iraq grow. Why in Iraq? Because (with the exception of the guys flying over Iran) that's where the Americans are. We will effectively rewind the war by a couple of years to where the insurgency was at its strongest.
     
  21. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #21
    Bush nudges Cheney, "Time for you to have another heart attack, we need a 72 hour distraction."
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    Shame those things aren't infectious isn't it? ;)
     
  23. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #23
    Only if you nudge the CIA.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    They're already overextended elsewhere. But if you think Iran will be easy to just bomb and be done with it, you don't know Iran. An Iran war would be even worse and harder than Iraq, and we couldn't even handle that. Especially since we're back to losing the 'stans. Just what we need is a whole 'nother war we can't handle that will be sold as easy.

    And for the record, no, I don't blame the troops themselves (I know some of them and almost was one myself until one of my friends in the AF convinced me not to among other reasons), I lay all blame at the feet of those making the decisions.
     
  25. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #25
    I have an update from the Israeli Press. I do not think we should interpret this to be definitive, we should not discount it either. Actually, the winds of war are once again beginning to blow at gale force. There have been several speculative op-eds, which are also predicting this same timeframe. There is no doubt that things are progressing beyond the discussion point. I will remind you that Congressman Conyers informed the President (by official mail), he (Conyers) would immediately begin impeachment, if Bush attacked Iran without congressional approval. However, if the impeachment process would begin today, it is doubtful that it could go all the way through a Senate trial, before Bush was out of office. If Bush waited for a couple months, it definitely would not happen.

    Even Cheney's daughter is getting into the act. Yuk! :eek:

     

Share This Page