Link dump

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Does America attack to Iran?

These days in Iranian blogsphere is a discussion about possible attack to Iran ,there are many questions?
Does war is completely a dirty thing or is essential? If America attack to Iran what is duty of an Iranian? Does he must defend his country or must support Americans? and or go to underground of his home and hide? Do Americans bring freedom or bring a rebel country and al-Qaeda with themselves? And many other questions like these.
I really don’t like speak about this subject , so I don’t write my ideas about these question because if I participate in this discussion it’s mean that I agree with America and Bush’s right to do what ever they want?
It’s really strange suddenly Media make a stream and we go with that stream even that stream was only a lie.
-------------
link:Iranians for Peace

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

There will be no attack as it is only phyops. I personally don't want war with Iran, but if they build a nuclear weapon then we have no choice. It isn't like they haven't funded, equiped, trained, and directed terrorist groups to attack US troops and interests before.

While I voted for Bush I don't think he realizes to what extent he has alienated people. The pressure he is exerting for governments to make democratic reforms is counter-productive. He should just focus on working with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine and let the rest of the muslim people see for themselves.

Anonymous said...

America does not want to go to war with Iran, but it isn't impossible that the USA will destroy nuclear facilities. Iraq has been hard because Arab nations dislike westerners, more specifically, Americans. It is not easy to protect people who can't decide if we or the terrorists are a greater threat. We hope to have the Iraqi military trained well-enough to protect themselves in a year or so. We hope to see Iraq standing on it's own in a free-market world.

Regardless of what those in the Middle East believes, the United States doesn't want to hurt anyone. We do believe that all people should be free and that women should be treated as equals. We think Iranians will eventually chose this for themselves.

The hope is that the desire for freedom will grow without any intervention, and Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Syria will all eventually want democracy for their people. We hope that a prosperous and free Iraq will spread the fire of democracy throughout the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry. America will not attack Iran. The U.S. military is stretched way too thin, and Bush knows that the American people are growing more and more disgusted over the complete American failure in Iraq. Should he wage war in Iran, the American people, as well as Congress would begin motion for his impeachment. The American people do not war in Iran any more than the Iranians do. These are only idle threats. God Bless Iran and the Iranian People!

Sean H. Banks said...

Hah, US of Bush think they can get away with a preemptive strike on Iran, they have another thing coming. First of all , there is no international support whatsoever, second of all, US forces are hopelessly overstretched in the Iraq fiasco, thirdly, they'd lose if they ever went in.

Nuclear threat, crap. What about Israel?
Major sponsor of terrorism, where's the proof?

Fucktards, I'm with Iran on this one.

Anonymous said...

About half of Americans will support Bush no matter what he does. They apparently believe him to be guided by god, and therefore incapable of making mistakes. As long as someone else's kids are losing arms and legs in a foreign land, they feel as if they're personally doing something patriotic by "supporting" them with a Yellow Ribbon Magnet on their car.

The other half of us have no interest in policing the whole planet, and understand the danger involved in following a madman who wants America to do exactly that..

Brooklyn Rooster said...

American will "attack" Iran. The current administration is in the early stages,look back on the earliest talking days of the take over of Iraq. They will use it as cover for their fiscal failures. Find and read the recent article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker - not fictional ramblings, he has men in the Pentagon and in government talking to him. Their reasons to speak to him? Fear of overstretching our forces and political will? Never the less; If I were living in Tehran I would pack a "to go bag", stock up on bottled water, and stay clear of the Mullahs that will call for defense - the type of bloody horrible defense of the kind used against Iraq.
Recall your government sending in waves (thousands) of young boys ahead of the soldiers to detonate the mines?
--> This a.m. I was actually reading the Sunday NY Times, and while reading a book review, a new book, first person from someone living in Iran - I paused and in my mind imagined - with graphic horror - those poor boys being lead by Religious leaders into the mine fields... how can men do such evil deeds and still go on to (be allowed to)rule a country? There are serious flaws within the fabric of the Iranian society, any society that follows such men, Mullahs = butchers...
I am taking my 6 year old to the park now, I cannot imagine what type person or a people that would take someone like him and promise heaven for stepping on a land mine?
- PS - what became of the boys that were only hurt? Does any one know the fate of these childern? I can only figure they were finished off out there in the minefields by the same men that sent them in.

Brooklyn Rooster said...

Sean Banks brings up some interesting points BUT- is abit off base. Mostly.
1. Israel is the US's 51st state, you and all other must one day come to accept this slippery idea.
2. Their weapons are our weapons, see#1.
3. Why is his blog blocked?
4. Why do folks still believe "international support" is an issue with the Bush administration?
5. How will the US "not get away with it?" - that is the pre-emptive strike?- How will the US not? Explain this comment.
6. the US is getting away with "snooping and pooping" in Iran NOW. The tragets are being pinpointed NOW.
7. MORE than 50% of Americans will support a strike into Iran -as stated above by someone- not 50%.
8. The only thing that will hold up the US drive into Iran is that public & Pentagon support is every weak at this time for further military actions until Iraq is "settled" - i.e. - need more troops...
Cannon fodder is in high demand, but low turn out.
9. Bush and Congress is addressing this issue now - uping pay to retain soldiers, and bonuses all round ! Like pro ballers recieve.
As soon as can get a $100,000 signing bonus and/or re-up check - the issue of depleted ranks will be ghosted. And we can get our next war on.

Anonymous said...

Iran will not be hit. The Bush admin. is convinced that if people determine their own destiny then peace will result in the long run. Attacking Iran is not on the agenda, but not for the reasons stated in the prior comments. Everyone on the inside knows that Iraq and Iran are very, very different.

S. Banks and the rooster are morons, you should ignore them.

Bob said...

The division within the U.S. is reflected in some of the comments above.

Bush will do what he wants to do without first using anything that simulates sound reasoning, and he will justify his military acts by using the marketing techniques that he used against Iraq: i.e., vilify Iran (or Syria or whoever is next), point to selected evidence that shows that the Iranian government is evil (without any perspective to all the other evils on the planet that we do not address with bombs), and then tell the CIA to find more evidence, firing anyone who says that Iranians are not evil.

Bush believes that God speaks to him and apparantly God is telling him to respond to people that he (Bush) doesn't like with violence, hatred, or disregard, and he procedes with disregard for law. He does this with his religious agenda in the U.S. (giving government money to religious organizations, anti-gay policy and other policies) and to his attacks in the Mid-East.

Bush is leading nobody to a better life. If we use his actions as an example, we will respond to people, with whom we disagree, with hatred and violence, and he tells us that if you think that you are right, you should kill to get your way. The people who support Bush in the U.S. do so for self-serving needs like low taxes, gun rights, anti-abortion laws (self-serving in that it imposes religious beliefs on others) , Bibles instead of science in school, and these supporters are easily lulled into believing whatever he says.

So my answer is that he is poised to attack again, and he will attack whoever he wants, whenever he feels like it by using the techniques described above.

Using Bush's words... don't "misunderestimate" his abiliy to make bad decisions.

Anonymous said...

You wacked out quasi-communist america hating liberal democrats really ebarass our country with your insane babbling.

--------------------------

There will be no ground war with Iran.

Most likely IF the time comes you will see early precision airial strikes by the US, supported by spec ops on the ground but overwhelming majority of the forces will be Iranians.

Before that point, putting Amerian soldiers in there would just put them in a situation where neither THEY nor the Iranian civilians would 'trust' each other. Much like Iraq. "Tolerate" but not help (at least not for a while) for whatever reason.

For that reason, and because there is a substantial 'sudent' and reform structure within Iran, I can say this with certainty.

Until then it will be diplomacy (letting the Brits/Germans/French learn for themselves what we have been saying about the intentions of the Mullahs)

The only other thing that would advance the timetable is a surgical airial strike on some Nuke facility, and that would be a hit and go... that is unless the Mullahs decide to do something like 'surpirse nuke' Israel in retaliation.

If that happens... all bets are off (and not becuase of the US at that point)

Brooklyn Rooster said...

Yep it does just boil down to what this President "wants to do" - Look to Bush's build up in the last two places, both started with "only phyops" as one of the anonymous ones so put it.
Maybe though Syria is low hanging fruit now that the tide has shifted in Lebanon.
Bush would have much more "support" to go in there - the place is a nest of terror groups, so out in the open they have store front offices! I'd really support that first.
***
""You wacked out quasi-communist america hating liberal democrats really ebarass our country with your insane babbling.""
---
I am not a Demo you ill educated tool - I am an old party Republican that is tired (along with my friends) of those folks, like you, that by mouthing AM radio DJ's think they are educated. Try reading a book or two, it has been proven radio waves make mushy brains even more so. Oops my bad, you and your boy Bush can't stand to read, you guys need others to think for you. You with radio and Bush with Rove.
***
Yes America is divided. And will remain so for a very long time when dialogue on serious subjects is reduced to illerate
school yard name calling. It is a shame some of us have to follow fat drug addled
radio hosts like dumb puppies chasing stick.
**
MSM has it the U.N. gal looking into the Iranian Nuclear issue is abit upset that they have "hidden" info from the inspectors - uh,oh this is sounding familiar, too. Next phase sactions then the strike on certain points of interest?

I say get a good bottle of something, beer or wine, ready to watch the next round of night strikes somewhere - the sky is pretty when the softening begins.