When will the US invade Iran?

When will the US invade Iran?

  • Never
  • Before 9/11/2006
  • Between 9/11/06 and 1/1/07
  • Before 6/1/07
  • Before 1/1/08
  • 2008 or later

0 voters

Actually, I think this poll is a bit silly, and if enough people complain or ignore, I may delete it. The idea is to see if reality matches peoples’ expectations. Personally, I feel quite surprised by the American tough talk toward Iran. I wouldn’t have dreamed that they’d be thinking of annexing another territory so soon, but now that they are talking in that direction (metaphorically speaking), I am starting to wonder. Maybe it’s some kind of blitzkrieg thing. Maybe they want to bring back the draft.

How much oil is there? And How much will it piss off our Saudi friends if we did? That will answer you question.

“We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
–Vice President Dick Cheney, March 7, 2006

. . . or the nuclear fuel cycle technology to allow it to do so.

"2:1: Overt Air Strike by the United States or Israel by March 31, 2007.

If Iran continues to make progress toward nuclear weapons capability, despite heavy international pressure, a surgical military strike against one of its key facilities

Invade? No.

Bomb? Sure. But, probably not until after the UN demostrates a flacid badbadbad finger waving “resolution” or two.

Holy Hand Grenade! WTF does that means?
Pick up a book, will ya? Blitzkrieg died on the steppes of Russia in 1941/42.

The USA will do whatever it wants. Just as those hairy mullahs will do what they want. I hope the American response will be measured, and that the ranks of Farsi speakers in the US intelligence community will have risen dramatically by then.

If I was President Bush, I would send the President of Iran a pair of Industrial Strength Nose Hair Trimmers, with a promise of future gifts of Back Shavers & Butt Hair Wax Treatment. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Ahm’ MadintheHead), when seen in profile, has the hairiest nostrils I have EVER seen.

An’ tha’s seyin’ summat…! :slight_smile:

Holy Hand Grenade! WTF does that means?
Pick up a book, will ya? Blitzkrieg died on the steppes of Russia in 1941/42.
[/quote]

Check out the first Gulf War. Textbook example of a blitzkrieg in operation.

The OKW couldn’t of done a better job itself.

[quote=“TheGingerMan”]

If I was President Bush, I would send the President of Iran a pair of Industrial Strength Nose Hair Trimmers, with a promise of future gifts of Back Shavers & Butt Hair Wax Treatment. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Ahm’ MadintheHead), when seen in profile, has the hairiest nostrils I have EVER seen.

An’ tha’s seyin’ summat…! :slight_smile:[/quote]

If I were President Bush I would promise every Iranian female a US Passport, a free education, freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and a $10,000 voucher for Macy’s.

Watch the ladies leave by the bunches and watch the blue balled Iranian men self-implode. No women will get them to change their attitude.

The President’s polling at below 30% approval and public support for a new war when we’re seeing dozens of casualties per day in Iraq is close to 0%. So the answer is, um, no.

Not that close to 0%

[quote]The comprehensive new Zogby poll shows that 64% of respondents favor joint U.S.-European military intervention to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and 63% favor joint military action with the United Nation to stop Iran

In the NY Times on Feb 15 : here is a good move this time from Rice.

QUOTE
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel Wednesday in Washington that she planned to ask for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, but she met with sharp questioning from Democrats about whether Bush administration policies were promoting the rise of anti-American governments around the world.

Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the money for Iran, on top of $10 million already provided in the current budget, would be used to “support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people,” and to counter the influence of Tehran’s new hard-line regime.

“No one wants to see a Middle East that is dominated by an Iranian hegemony, particularly one that has access to nuclear technology,” Rice said, and she later called Iran “our biggest single strategic challenge” in the region.

She said in her prepared statement that the extra $75 million “would enable us to increase our support for democracy and improve our radio broadcasting, begin satellite television broadcast, increase the contacts between our peoples through expanded fellowships and scholarships for Iranian students, and to bolster our public democracy efforts.”

The bulk of the money, $50 million, would go toward establishing a round-the-clock television broadcast into Iran in Persian, according to a State Department official, along with improvements to radio and satellite broadcasting.

“The regime’s policies are risking the total isolation of Iran, and the people of Iran shouldn’t suffer from that,” Rice told the Senate panel.

Rice and other members of the administration have stepped up their criticism of Iran in recent weeks, pressing for United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program and blaming the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for fomenting violent protests over the publication of satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

But the focus on Iran on Wednesday also reflected a sense that its standing has grown as the region has changed in recent years, with a friendly Shiite-dominated government preparing to take office in Iraq, Hamas winning elections for the Palestinian Parliament and radical groups like Hezbollah and the Egyptian Brotherhood making gains in votes in Lebanon and Egypt.

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the panel’s top Democrat, said that any sanctions on Iran that included an embargo on purchases of its oil “would have a dramatic, dramatic negative impact.”

Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, called Iran “the most powerful country in the Middle East” and “the most difficult.” He noted that the Iranians have the American military at their doorstep in Iraq and Afghanistan and that there are countries in the region - Israel, India and Pakistan - that have nuclear weapons.

Hagel praised the administration for working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency in seeking to rein in the Iranian’s nuclear program, saying it was a change from the dismissive attitude that prevailed before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I hope we are now past the Chalabi days of relying on that crowd or that kind of policy,” he said, referring to Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iranian exile leader whose group provided much of the information about Iraqi programs to develop weapons of mass destruction that was later found to be false.

In response, Rice said that “Iran is pursuing policies in the Middle East that are, if not 180, 170 degrees counter to the kind of Middle East that we would build.”

But she said that she “would not overstate Iranian influence, by recognizing that it is diluted by a number of other forces and factors that are deeply suspicious of Iranian influence and Iranian power.”

Rice said that harsh comments by Ahmadinejad since taking office last summer have “crystallized the concerns of the international community, because he speaks in blunter ways about Iranian ambitions than did prior Iranian governments.”

She acknowledged that Iran was likely to have close ties with the new, Shiite-dominated government of Iraq, but said she would be traveling to the Gulf region to talk with leaders there about countering Iranian influence.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel Wednesday in Washington that she planned to ask for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, but she met with sharp questioning from Democrats about whether Bush administration policies were promoting the rise of anti-American governments around the world.

Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the money for Iran, on top of $10 million already provided in the current budget, would be used to “support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people,” and to counter the influence of Tehran’s new hard-line regime.

“No one wants to see a Middle East that is dominated by an Iranian hegemony, particularly one that has access to nuclear technology,” Rice said, and she later called Iran “our biggest single strategic challenge” in the region.

She said in her prepared statement that the extra $75 million “would enable us to increase our support for democracy and improve our radio broadcasting, begin satellite television broadcast, increase the contacts between our peoples through expanded fellowships and scholarships for Iranian students, and to bolster our public democracy efforts.”

The bulk of the money, $50 million, would go toward establishing a round-the-clock television broadcast into Iran in Persian, according to a State Department official, along with improvements to radio and satellite broadcasting.

“The regime’s policies are risking the total isolation of Iran, and the people of Iran shouldn’t suffer from that,” Rice told the Senate panel.

Rice and other members of the administration have stepped up their criticism of Iran in recent weeks, pressing for United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program and blaming the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for fomenting violent protests over the publication of satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

But the focus on Iran on Wednesday also reflected a sense that its standing has grown as the region has changed in recent years, with a friendly Shiite-dominated government preparing to take office in Iraq, Hamas winning elections for the Palestinian Parliament and radical groups like Hezbollah and the Egyptian Brotherhood making gains in votes in Lebanon and Egypt.

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the panel’s top Democrat, said that any sanctions on Iran that included an embargo on purchases of its oil “would have a dramatic, dramatic negative impact.”

Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, called Iran “the most powerful country in the Middle East” and “the most difficult.” He noted that the Iranians have the American military at their doorstep in Iraq and Afghanistan and that there are countries in the region - Israel, India and Pakistan - that have nuclear weapons.

Hagel praised the administration for working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency in seeking to rein in the Iranian’s nuclear program, saying it was a change from the dismissive attitude that prevailed before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I hope we are now past the Chalabi days of relying on that crowd or that kind of policy,” he said, referring to Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iranian exile leader whose group provided much of the information about Iraqi programs to develop weapons of mass destruction that was later found to be false.

In response, Rice said that “Iran is pursuing policies in the Middle East that are, if not 180, 170 degrees counter to the kind of Middle East that we would build.”

But she said that she “would not overstate Iranian influence, by recognizing that it is diluted by a number of other forces and factors that are deeply suspicious of Iranian influence and Iranian power.”

Rice said that harsh comments by Ahmadinejad since taking office last summer have “crystallized the concerns of the international community, because he speaks in blunter ways about Iranian ambitions than did prior Iranian governments.”

She acknowledged that Iran was likely to have close ties with the new, Shiite-dominated government of Iraq, but said she would be traveling to the Gulf region to talk with leaders there about countering Iranian influence.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel Wednesday in Washington that she planned to ask for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, but she met with sharp questioning from Democrats about whether Bush administration policies were promoting the rise of anti-American governments around the world.

Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the money for Iran, on top of $10 million already provided in the current budget, would be used to “support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people,” and to counter the influence of Tehran’s new hard-line regime.

“No one wants to see a Middle East that is dominated by an Iranian hegemony, particularly one that has access to nuclear technology,” Rice said, and she later called Iran “our biggest single strategic challenge” in the region.

She said in her prepared statement that the extra $75 million “would enable us to increase our support for democracy and improve our radio broadcasting, begin satellite television broadcast, increase the contacts between our peoples through expanded fellowships and scholarships for Iranian students, and to bolster our public democracy efforts.”

The bulk of the money, $50 million, would go toward establishing a round-the-clock television broadcast into Iran in Persian, according to a State Department official, along with improvements to radio and satellite broadcasting
UNQUOTE

I m more confident that Iran is more ready for a democracy. People (and women) are educated (highly educated even).

A minority only is really backing their president.

So good move from Rice to encourage the Iranian from the inside. I would have hoped they could have done their own revolution.

Holy Hand Grenade! WTF does that means?
Pick up a book, will ya? Blitzkrieg died on the steppes of Russia in 1941/42.
[/quote]

Check out the first Gulf War. Textbook example of a blitzkrieg in operation.

The OKW couldn’t of done a better job itself.[/quote]

Isn’t blitzkrieg now referred to as “shock and awe”?

The USA can’t just invade Iran, it must first build a cause for war that would bring the American people on side.

This could be done by orchestrating a terrorist attack on a major American Phallic symbol. Once the paranoia of the American people has been rekindled, the president could get some allied leaders to commit their forces to the enterprise by promising them an all-expenses-paid weekend at the presidential ranch.

While the UN is waving a flaccid finger at the mullahs, the USA and its coalition of lickspittles can deploy their forces along the Iraq-Iran frontier. Everything is now ready. The invasion can be launched.

And if anything goes wrong, blame the Jews.*

  • It’s called sarcasm (or satire, I’m not sure which)

Remember when Tony Blair told us that Saddam could launch his (non-existent) WDMs in 45 minutes?

[quote]The west’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.

A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington’s efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran’s compliance with international demands.

The five permanent members of the security council began consultations on an expected statement on Iran on Wednesday after Russian-led attempts to broker a compromise at the IAEA in Vienna failed. A deadline could be set as early as next week and would cover a period “of weeks, not months”, officials said.

A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. “By the end of the year is a … realistic period,” said the official. “It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran’s technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.[/quote]

guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,1727805,00.html

It’s starting to look like it’s set for this summer or early fall.

Wow, this thread takes “armchair quatrerbacks” to a whole new level. I refuse to participate in that poll.

Oh, and not to get too semantic on ya, but it’s a pet peeve of mine:

“The Americans” will never invade Iran. The American Gov’t might give orders for the U.S. Military to invade Iran, but…there will also be lots of other Americans holding peace vigils and war protests and all that, and enormous debates going on in America with everybody having a different opinion, sooo…

:flog: Yeah, I know, but…

Can you tell I’ve had a few too many people saying “Why are you in Iraq?” lately when I’m thinking, “uh, I’m in Taipei, can’t you see me?”

But I’m going to call people on it every time I see somebody say something like this anyway. [/b]

[quote=“trebuchet”]Wow, this thread takes “armchair quatrerbacks” to a whole new level. I refuse to participate in that poll.

Oh, and not to get too semantic on ya, but it’s a pet peeve of mine:

“The Americans” will never invade Iran. The American Gov’t might give orders for the U.S. military to invade Iran, but…there will also be lots of other Americans holding peace vigils and war protests and all that, and enormous debates going on in America with everybody having a different opinion, sooo…

:flog: Yeah, I know, but…

Can you tell I’ve had a few too many people saying “Why are you in Iraq?” lately when I’m thinking, “uh, I’m in Taipei, can’t you see me?”

But I’m going to call people on it every time I see somebody say something like this anyway. [/b][/quote]

Are you drinking and posting? I think that’s against Forumosa rules unless I’m mistaken.

There’s always Plan B:

“The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.”
– Jerusalem Post

[quote=“spook”][quote=“trebuchet”]Wow, this thread takes “armchair quatrerbacks” to a whole new level. I refuse to participate in that poll.

Oh, and not to get too semantic on ya, but it’s a pet peeve of mine:

“The Americans” will never invade Iran. The American Gov’t might give orders for the U.S. military to invade Iran, but…there will also be lots of other Americans holding peace vigils and war protests and all that, and enormous debates going on in America with everybody having a different opinion, sooo…

:flog: Yeah, I know, but…

Can you tell I’ve had a few too many people saying “Why are you in Iraq?” lately when I’m thinking, “uh, I’m in Taipei, can’t you see me?”

But I’m going to call people on it every time I see somebody say something like this anyway. [/b][/quote]

Are you drinking and posting? I think that’s against Forumosa rules unless I’m mistaken.[/quote]

(1) You would be mistaken about that Forumosa Rule. (Although, for course, I know you were only joking – a poster who’s been around as long as you will be well aware that such a rule would probably result in a significant reduction in the site’s post-count, and provided the drunk posting still respects the rules would also probably result in a reduction in the number of interesting comments and perspectives we get :wink: )

(2) Why do you think Trebuchet’s comments here are influenced by drink? Personally, I think most of us can and do make the distinction between govt. X’s policy and the views of individuals who happen to come from country X. But I dare say some people may tend to forget from time to time. In any event, I don’t think it’s a crazy point to remind people of.

(3) Your “Plan B” point seems relevant and worthy of discussion in the thread. For my part, I don’t think that either Israel or the US will ever invade Iran (at least not in the foreseeable future). But a half-hearted and ineffective airstrike would not surprise me terribly.

Trebuchet’s logic, though obviously well-intentioned, seemed a bit scattered and hard to follow so I suspected the influence of drink.

I don’t expect the U.S. or Israel to invade Iran either because that would require a draft and, in our present military circumstances, would border on suicidal.

If Iran doesn’t cease its pursuit of nuclear fuel cycle technology though I fully expect the U.S. and/or Israel to attack Iran militarily. A nuclear-capable Iran would be a far greater threat than Iraq ever was.

When the hammer falls though, the consequences will be hard to predict and contain.

Iran already got good satellite TV…

The Bush regime can’t invade Iran. The simple fact is he already shot his wad in Iraq. Case closed.

Here’s a photo of Georgie Boy shooting his wad. I’m sure you can imagine hundreds of other such scenes.

BAGHDAD, March 15 – At least four and perhaps as many as 13 people were killed, including a number of women and at least one child, in a U.S. military operation Wednesday.

As soon as President Bush feels is the right time to do so, unfortunately.
PS F*CK ALL FLAMING SOUTH AFRICAN MALES LIVING ON THIS ISLAND, no pun intended.
I’m from a blue state, and I can’t believe what this world is coming to.

Toe Tag,

During WWII, thousands of civilians were killed, both hostile and friendly. Do you believe that we shouldn’t have opposed the Nazi Regime and other Axis powers because of the civilian losses incurred?

The loss of innocent life is always regretable, always. But if the war is just, then we must press on, despite the unfortunate civilian losses. I realize you don’t think the Second Gulf War was just (even I have my doubts sometimes), but do you honestly believe the war was created to gratify President Bush’s ego? Do you think he celebrates the death of those children and other innocents?