Alpine Trooper
AllCiv
Ever so often I feel that I don't really commit too much to debate about certain subjects. Generally I do this purposely as I am easily amused, if that makes sense. What I am contributing here is a compilation of my own second-year University education and various authors information on Iran.
We should all consider an invasion of Iran by the Western world as an inevitablity. The inclusion of Iran to complete the "axis of evil" triad leaves President George Bush particularly responsbile for the war which will occur; this set in motion slightly over four years ago. This responsbility exists regardless of whether Bush's actions in the coming weeks and months are right or wrong. The invasion of Iran will probably not be described nor labeled as a war by the American administration and its willing counter-parts, which should cause some concern for those living in those participating countries. But I digress, because an erosion of liberties on behalf of those living especially in the United States does not appear of concern.
In hopes of stymieing the "anti-Bush" rhetoric that will come in replies to this thread, I do not differentiate between America's Democrats and Republicans. I have a firm belief either party would entertain war with Iran. Furthermore, I find that both are right of the political spectrum. I am not going to debate internal American politics.
You should understand the importance of securing Iran, which will not be to stop terrorism. Iran is a major blank spot for continued American dominance in this region as well as for Irsaeli security. Iran is the second stage of preemptive action: If invading Iraq because it could possibly have nuclear weapons was the first, I am sure you can understand Iran's case.
The West is poised to make war on a country whom hasn't even constructed nuclear weapons yet. This is serious flawed newage policy - If you have nuclear weapons you are not invaded, if you don't you are invaded.
The Nuclear Factor
One should note that an actual land invasion of Iran is highly unlikely. Major air assaults, even more powerful "daisy cutters" "bunker busters", and the possibility of tactical nuclear weapons are likely options.
Nuclear weapons? The Bush administration has adopted new policies on its use of nuclear weapons which it considers "safe for the surrounding population". Nuclear weapons are no longer for self defence, especially in the case of Iran.
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032
I have a strong conviction that Iran is going to be the "big mistake" on the part of the West. Particularly because of Russia and China, which I have not discussed but you probably get the picture. I am particularly concerned because I live across the river from Detroit, which is a prime target for nuclear weapons. I believe this is different than the Cold War and I often wonder why America is even bothering with the security council, they ignored it when they went into Iraq. How far can the West push the envelope before something big happens back in our safe haven, seperated by two oceans. I am not sure, but I think Iran will be the limit.
We should all consider an invasion of Iran by the Western world as an inevitablity. The inclusion of Iran to complete the "axis of evil" triad leaves President George Bush particularly responsbile for the war which will occur; this set in motion slightly over four years ago. This responsbility exists regardless of whether Bush's actions in the coming weeks and months are right or wrong. The invasion of Iran will probably not be described nor labeled as a war by the American administration and its willing counter-parts, which should cause some concern for those living in those participating countries. But I digress, because an erosion of liberties on behalf of those living especially in the United States does not appear of concern.
In hopes of stymieing the "anti-Bush" rhetoric that will come in replies to this thread, I do not differentiate between America's Democrats and Republicans. I have a firm belief either party would entertain war with Iran. Furthermore, I find that both are right of the political spectrum. I am not going to debate internal American politics.
You should understand the importance of securing Iran, which will not be to stop terrorism. Iran is a major blank spot for continued American dominance in this region as well as for Irsaeli security. Iran is the second stage of preemptive action: If invading Iraq because it could possibly have nuclear weapons was the first, I am sure you can understand Iran's case.
The West is poised to make war on a country whom hasn't even constructed nuclear weapons yet. This is serious flawed newage policy - If you have nuclear weapons you are not invaded, if you don't you are invaded.
The Nuclear Factor
One should note that an actual land invasion of Iran is highly unlikely. Major air assaults, even more powerful "daisy cutters" "bunker busters", and the possibility of tactical nuclear weapons are likely options.
Nuclear weapons? The Bush administration has adopted new policies on its use of nuclear weapons which it considers "safe for the surrounding population". Nuclear weapons are no longer for self defence, especially in the case of Iran.
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032
I have a strong conviction that Iran is going to be the "big mistake" on the part of the West. Particularly because of Russia and China, which I have not discussed but you probably get the picture. I am particularly concerned because I live across the river from Detroit, which is a prime target for nuclear weapons. I believe this is different than the Cold War and I often wonder why America is even bothering with the security council, they ignored it when they went into Iraq. How far can the West push the envelope before something big happens back in our safe haven, seperated by two oceans. I am not sure, but I think Iran will be the limit.
