http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html
Big surprise here :rolleyes:. I wonder how this one is going to play out. Dont see it turning out anything similar to Iraq, there were too many other factors there. Plus dont know how many divisions currently in Iraq that could jump to Iran also. Actually going to war is a bit of a stretch anyways, maybe air strikes but no troop deployment.
Well, we are trying to reconcile our relations with Europe. Military action against Iran would definitely disrupt that. If Iran is sincere about its peaceful developments, then it should give the IAEA full disclosure and let the U.N. come in and inspect what they are doing. Only time will tell what the true intentions of the Bush Administration are. We need to let the diplomacy run its course SUFFICIENTLY. AND, we need to drop the "our way or the highway" attitude with Iran. We have already slipped up by implying that we want Iran's government removed. We continuously cite the human rights abuses in Iran, which are true but this is all the same pattern of action that we used for Iraq: "This nation harbors terrorists, oh and they might have dangerous weapons of mass destruction, oh and they commit human rights abuses against their people and we should try to help them." Bush gave indirect statements at the end of his State of the Union that implied that if the Iranian citizenry wanted a new government by way of revolution, the U.S. would stand by them. The Bush Administration has made it clear that they hope for this. So, it is a matter of time. What will happen in the next year? The next year will decide it. All I can say for now is: DIPLOMACY!! DIPLOMACY!! DIPLOMACY!!
Yes, iran is next (if we do indeed invade a country), Bush knows that war with N.Korea would bring massive amounts of casualities, whereas Iran would be easier to take control of.
Like my dad said "The monkey knows the tree he climbs"
Yes, iran is next (if we do indeed invade a country), Bush knows that war with N.Korea would bring massive amounts of casualities, whereas Iran would be easier to take control of.
Like my dad said "The monkey knows the tree he climbs"
I don't think there would be anything easy about dealing with either one of these countries. War is really an unrealistic option at this point.
I just hope our government isn't stoopid enough to invade another country, spread our troops even thinner, and give Americans even more of a bad name
Agreed. We started something to protect ourselves, lets please finish what we started and then move on. We can't afford anymore conflict right now.
We just don't need to be in everyone's business all the time. It goes back to being the world's police and "making the world safe for democracy". Bullshit. There is a hint of imperialism here and it gives America and all of the people in it a very bad name. It's not all about America.
Well, the US is going to invade Iran, I can tell you that. With North Korea not a viable option (bloody big army, nuclear capability) and the Bush administration not caring about international reputation, Iran will be next to go, purely to continue punishing the "Axis of Evil" as to retain some credibility while furthering US interests in the Middle East. Besides, invading Iran would link Iraq with Afghanistan. :)
While war would stretch ground forces, it wouldn't be that hard, with US/ UK troop casulaties from enemy fire about two a month, to take the country. The only factor would be Irani resistance and the time it would take. =\
On Europe, Bush has shown so much disdain for us that I doubt he really cares. The entire Bush administrations seems to have a policy of "we'll do what you want, if you oppose us fuck you and we'll ignore you totally and then rename your foodstuffs.". =\