NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-13-voa22.cfm
I bet that this is mostly brinksmanship to try and make Iran give up its nukes. Nevertheless, this release of information (even on the US's main propaganda site) shows that this Administration is getting very serious about Iran.

*I read this somewhere. I'm a little weary on what the future might bring. We'll see, though.
---------------------------------------------


What follows are some highlights of what Condoleezza Rice told reporters following a series of meetings about what to do about Iran's nuclear program. Seems pretty threatening.


Secretary of state says Iran could be referred to Security Council

Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 11:11 AM EST (1611 GMT)

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.

"It's obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations that, in fact, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) statutes would suggest that Iran has to be referred to the U.N. Security Council," she said.

Iran has refused to halt its nuclear program, saying it is only intended for peaceful energy production.

In recent months, negotiators from France, Britain and Germany have been trying to coax Iran to fully disclose the parameters of its nuclear program and abandon efforts to produce nuclear fuel in exchange for economic and political incentives.

"The message is there, the Iranians need to get that message, and we can certainly always remind them that there are other steps that the international community has at its disposal should they not be prepared to live up to these obligations," the secretary of state said.

She said that no timetable had been set.

Invading Iran would surely be political suicide for the Bush administration and neocons. The US can't afford it.

Invading Iran would surely be political suicide for the Bush administration and neocons. The US can't afford it.
It's not just neocons who think Iran is up to something, but I don't think we have the resources militarily, so it's still unlikely.

Invading Iran would surely be political suicide for the Bush administration and neocons. The US can't afford it.
I don't know Americans always love a good slaughter, it is a nice diversion from the ussuall nightly sitcoms and when president goes to war his approval ratings ussually soar. And of course Bush doesn't even really have to worry since he is done after this term.

Still there seems to be a lot of fight left in the insurgents. Despite all the cheery news lately they are still doing a lot of killing, so far 20 american troops have been killed this february, and the Sunni's, having chosen not to participate in the last round of elections, really have no stake in the current government. It'll be at least a year or two before things really heat up towards Iran.

Invading Iran would surely be political suicide for the Bush administration and neocons. The US can't afford it.
Oh no. Besides, I don't feel it is needed. The ruling aylotollahs have little popular support among the young, and with a little pressure, there may be a massive revolt. Maybe then, US forces will intervene to make sure that a revolt isn't stiffled.
However, this "next step" rhetoric is probably hinting more towards sanctions. If that happens, then the Iranian economy will collapse, and some form of a popular uprising should happen.

Invading Iran would surely be political suicide for the Bush administration and neocons. The US can't afford it.

In the long-run, yes...it would mean the neo-cons would have big problems. America itself would.

In the long-run, yes...it would mean the neo-cons would have big problems. America itself would.
Saying that, however, is a tad bit myopic. All the US would have to do is a critical expansion of the army. That wouldn't require a draft, because more people enlist when more salaried positions are created. It happened during the first Gulf War. It's expensive, but certainly doable.
In addition, the Iranians tend to be more pro-American, and more secular than the older aylotolahs. Occupation will be short and easy, and only a minor insurgency of diehards should appear, primarily in the Zargos Mountains. I also project troops to start withdrawing from Iraq by late 2006, and any invasion will probably happen then. As US troops become available, they can be sent to Iran as needed.

Saying that, however, is a tad bit myopic. All the US would have to do is a critical expansion of the army. That wouldn't require a draft, because more people enlist when more salaried positions are created. It happened during the first Gulf War. It's expensive, but certainly doable.
In addition, the Iranians tend to be more pro-American, and more secular than the older aylotolahs. Occupation will be short and easy, and only a minor insurgency of diehards should appear, primarily in the Zargos Mountains. I also project troops to start withdrawing from Iraq by late 2006, and any invasion will probably happen then. As US troops become available, they can be sent to Iran as needed.
Roflmao.

It's not just neocons who think Iran is up to something, but I don't think we have the resources militarily, so it's still unlikely.
Everyone know that Iran is up to something. It's just some neocons who want invasion as the solution to all problems.

I don't know Americans always love a good slaughter
Despite this fact, it would bankrupt the government, forcing them to raise taxes. It would also necessitate a draft.


However, this "next step" rhetoric is probably hinting more towards sanctions. If that happens, then the Iranian economy will collapse, and some form of a popular uprising should happen.
Yes, a democratic revolution in Iran would be good. It's possible because as you say the elderly conservative theocrats are unpopular (but the nuclear program is popular) and Iranians are among the least anti-American in the region.

Roflmao.
You have something to say, I bet?

You have something to say, I bet?
i sure do. you have go to be a joke account because the propagandic bullshit you spout is fucking hilarious

We should let the UN handle it. Afterall, they handled Iraq wonderfully for years. :rolleyes:

We should let the UN handle it. Afterall, they handled Iraq wonderfully for years. :rolleyes:
Oddly enough, they were. No WMD there...

In addition, the Iranians tend to be more pro-American, and more secular than the older aylotolahs. Occupation will be short and easy, and only a minor insurgency of diehards should appear, primarily in the Zargos Mountains. I also project troops to start withdrawing from Iraq by late 2006, and any invasion will probably happen then. As US troops become available, they can be sent to Iran as needed.

Probably.

Oddly enough, they were. No WMD there...

Nope, just 300,000 civilians murdered by their government, many of them killed by chemical weapons. The UN really is good at what is does, isn't it?

Nope, just 300,000 civilians murdered by their government, many of them killed by chemical weapons. The UN really is good at what is does, isn't it?


The UN can't stop the US from giving chemical weapons to whoever the US wants..

Besides, 300.000 is a small number compared to the 500.000 childreen that unisef estimates that died in Iraq after sanctions were put in place!

Guys, this has degenerated into screaming. Why don't we get back on topic.

Oddly enough, they were. No WMD there...
Right, and oil for food was just because Saddam wanted sanctions lifted in order to buy a new Corvette. Meanwhile we keep diggin up more of his bonegardens.

The UN can't stop the US from giving chemical weapons to whoever the US wants..

Besides, 300.000 is a small number compared to the 500.000 childreen that unisef estimates that died in Iraq after sanctions were put in place!
Yet Saddam was able to afford 40 palaces, hmmm.

The UN can't stop the US from giving chemical weapons to whoever the US wants..

Besides, 300.000 is a small number compared to the 500.000 childreen that unisef estimates that died in Iraq after sanctions were put in place!

I hate to get further off topic, so I'll stop once I correct this.

Oil for Food was the UN program meant to provide for Iraqi civilians after the UN sanctions were in place. Worked great, obviously.

There. I'm done.

you guys...none of this matters...in a couple of years this (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php) is gonna happen and it's all gonna be over anyway

Nope, just 300,000 civilians murdered by their government, many of them killed by chemical weapons. The UN really is good at what is does, isn't it?
In 1989-1991, before such restrictions existed...

And Iran. Iran so far away. I just ran. Iran all night and day.
I couldn't get away.

Guys, if you're gonna talk about Iraq, go start a new thread. Just don't hijack this one.

I hate to get further off topic, so I'll stop once I correct this.

Oil for Food was the UN program meant to provide for Iraqi civilians after the UN sanctions were in place. Worked great, obviously.

There. I'm done.


No, it didnt worked perfectly. But those 500.000 childreen died BEFORE it was implemented, the program was made so that Iraq could sell Oil in exchange for food and medicine. Shure, the program was rigged with corruption, but its intentions were clean. Hell, technically, the program did indeed worked: Childreen that were dieing from common diseases finally got their medicines, hell, even FOOD. ( http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/alertes/srirq997.htm ) ( http://www.unicef.org/newsline/97pr60.htm )

Or did you prefered that nothing was done? Perhaps instead of 500.000, you had 600.000, but do you care?

can anyone say .... conscription?

can anyone say .... conscription?

consc...no

consc...no

dra...

damn!

dra...

damn!
None will happen. Even if a war breaks out with Iran and North Korea, only about 500,000 more troops would be needed. All that would need to be done is to create more salaried positions, which have historically been filled. It is expensive, but doable.

None will happen. Even if a war breaks out with Iran and North Korea, only about 500,000 more troops would be needed. All that would need to be done is to create more salaried positions, which have historically been filled. It is expensive, but doable.

And where will these troops come from mate? As it is the US is stretched...

And where will these troops come from mate? As it is the US is stretched...
From the general population. If you pay them, they will come. It has happened in the past. Besides, not a very large percentage of 18 year old Americans are currently in the military, but they are not as hostile to it as their parents were at their age.

From the general population. If you pay them, they will come. It has happened in the past. Besides, not a very large percentage of 18 year old Americans are currently in the military, but they are not as hostile to it as their parents were at their age.

ummm...that'll be a draft then....coz recruitment is down is it not?

ummm...that'll be a draft then....coz recruitment is down is it not?
Not exactly. The active force is still meeting targets, although the Reserves and National Guard are not meeting goals.

Saying that, however, is a tad bit myopic. All the US would have to do is a critical expansion of the army. That wouldn't require a draft, because more people enlist when more salaried positions are created. It happened during the first Gulf War. It's expensive, but certainly doable.
In addition, the Iranians tend to be more pro-American, and more secular than the older aylotolahs. Occupation will be short and easy, and only a minor insurgency of diehards should appear, primarily in the Zargos Mountains. I also project troops to start withdrawing from Iraq by late 2006, and any invasion will probably happen then. As US troops become available, they can be sent to Iran as needed.

Yeah, you guys are really really popular in Iran :rolleyes:

That's why they decorate like this:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1998/weekly/980601/images/IRA04.jpg

Hey New Anthrus, you're spouting off numbers and predictions as if you had some considerable skill in military planning. You predict the behavior of the Iranian people with great assurance too.

Tell me, just where is it that you come by all this skill and knowledge? I'm not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of the Iranian invasion we're considering. Moreover your troop assessments and recruitment techniques seem fairly skewed as well.

Just where is all this talk coming from? What kind of credentials do you, or your sources have? I'm persuming that if you aren't coming up with these numbers and assertions through your own skill, I'm pretty sure you'd have to study and research this subject.

Hey New Anthrus, you're spouting off numbers and predictions as if you had some considerable skill in military planning. You predict the behavior of the Iranian people with great assurance too.

Tell me, just where is it that you come by all this skill and knowledge? I'm not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of the Iranian invasion we're considering. Moreover your troop assessments and recruitment techniques seem fairly skewed as well.

Just where is all this talk coming from? What kind of credentials do you, or your sources have? I'm persuming that if you aren't coming up with these numbers and assertions through your own skill, I'm pretty sure you'd have to study and research this subject.
This isn't military planning at all. All it is is marketing and politics. That's what I see it all boiling down to. Besides, there is precedent with the creation of more salaried positions raising an army, such as the first Gulf War.
As for the Iranians, I can safely predict their behavior. They are hungry for regime change in that country, and don't even mind rebelling occaisonally, as we saw two years ago with the massive student protests. They aren't in love with the West, but they respect it more than their parents did.
I'm not playing armchair general. But I don't really want to, either. Generals have a very hard time seeing the necessity of what they are doing, and I think that impedes them from doing their job. If they didn't question their civilian leadership, the military wouldn't have half of the problems it did today. But I guess you guys can't move beyond a Cold War mentality.
Edit:
No one, except maybe a couple of generals at the Pentagon, is considering this seriously. Instead, this is about if, and only if.

Guys, if you're gonna talk about Iraq, go start a new thread. Just don't hijack this one.
but...but...but....those war drums that are faintly beating are coming from the new US colony of Iraq oh and the other US colony of Afghanistan.

You know that I used to play Risk alot and I know what is next.

ummm...that'll be a draft then....coz recruitment is down is it not?
This is what I have been saying for awhile....that there will have to be a draft to support the advancement of US imperialism in the Middle East.

The US has already drawn troops away from the Korean front, which is not particularly a good move, and I recall many stories about stressed out US troops in Iraq, especially amongst the reservists.

Nope, just 300,000 civilians murdered by their government, many of them killed by chemical weapons. The UN really is good at what is does, isn't it?
Perhaps if you read this story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ECD352BE-6B8F-449F-8F97-C7AB0DC08A94.htm), then you can come back and change the numbers?

Saying that, however, is a tad bit myopic. All the US would have to do is a critical expansion of the army. That wouldn't require a draft, because more people enlist when more salaried positions are created. It happened during the first Gulf War. It's expensive, but certainly doable.
In addition, the Iranians tend to be more pro-American, and more secular than the older aylotolahs. Occupation will be short and easy, and only a minor insurgency of diehards should appear, primarily in the Zargos Mountains. I also project troops to start withdrawing from Iraq by late 2006, and any invasion will probably happen then. As US troops become available, they can be sent to Iran as needed.

I thought I was reading a snippet from when the Iraq war was about to start but I failed to see "soldiers being greeted with sweets and flowers".

Perhaps if you read this story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ECD352BE-6B8F-449F-8F97-C7AB0DC08A94.htm), then you can come back and change the numbers?

Your arguement may have more weight if this wasn't from Al Jazeera.

Besides:

Gassing of Kurds: Done with WMDs Saddam was able to make with the technology we gave/sold him in hopes he'd kick Iran's ass with them.

Iran/Iraq War: Plenty dead.

Shia slaughter post Gulf War: Done because we didn't throw Saddam from power in the first war and we created a weak surrender document that still allowed him to fly attack helicopters that slaughtered the shia in the southern areas. Hence, the creation of the No-Fly Zones.

These instances created the vast majority of the mass graves uncovered in Iraq. All due to the dumb, dumb practices and incompetance of the US and its allies (but lets face it...mainly the US).

ummm...that'll be a draft then....coz recruitment is down is it not?

I think the expected recruitment wasn't reached because the quota was increased by a large margin. I could be wrong though.

Just so you know, The US has enough arms right now to arm 10 million men. They have enough armor for triple the number of armored divisions currently fielded. This would be full strength divisions. There are twice as many aircraft in inventory than pilots. There are hundreds of naval vessels in mothballs they could press into service. Including aircraft carrier battle groups. Of course there would be a draft. But if you added the fact that they want to let women in there. Double the "manpower". The US could field a 20 million "person" Army. 10 million within 6 months of a draft. Trained and armed. 20 million within a year. Of course a massive arms buying spree.

BTW US government wont go bankrupt over a little war with iran. Sources of above numbers is "Janes"

Just so you know, The US has enough arms right now to arm 10 million men. They have enough armor for triple the number of armored divisions currently fielded. This would be full strength divisions. There are twice as many aircraft in inventory than pilots. There are hundreds of naval vessels in mothballs they could press into service. Including aircraft carrier battle groups. Of course there would be a draft. But if you added the fact that they want to let women in there. Double the "manpower". The US could field a 20 million "person" Army. 10 million within 6 months of a draft. Trained and armed. 20 million within a year. Of course a massive arms buying spree.

BTW US government wont go bankrupt over a little war with iran. Sources of above numbers is "Janes"

I say we go to war against Iran to test this theory.

Oh no. Besides, I don't feel it is needed. The ruling aylotollahs have little popular support among the young, and with a little pressure, there may be a massive revolt. Maybe then, US forces will intervene to make sure that a revolt isn't stiffled.
However, this "next step" rhetoric is probably hinting more towards sanctions. If that happens, then the Iranian economy will collapse, and some form of a popular uprising should happen.

That seems oddly familiar with the Iraqi people welcoming us with open arms WHICH THEY NEVER DID!

Forgive me for not reading this whole thread before I reply, but you're all kidding right? You didn't see this coming, like, two or three years ago?
You can give my all your military stats nay this and economic stats no that.
It was kind of the point to go into Iraq. Now we can get Iran from both sides. (Find a map if you're unsure of the geography involved).
Does Iran have/have the potential to develop WMD? YES
Does Iran harbor terrorists? YES
Is Iran led by a "bad man" who was not democratically elected? YES
Well the above criteria were used to go into Iraq, so why not Iran?
Let's spread some liberty kids!
Isn't that what America is all about?

Forgive me for not reading this whole thread before I reply, but you're all kidding right? You didn't see this coming, like, two or three years ago?
You can give my all your military stats nay this and economic stats no that.
It was kind of the point to go into Iraq. Now we can get Iran from both sides. (Find a map if you're unsure of the geography involved).
Does Iran have/have the potential to develop WMD? YES
Does Iran harbor terrorists? YES
Is Iran led by a "bad man" who was not democratically elected? YES
Well the above criteria were used to go into Iraq, so why not Iran?
Let's spread some liberty kids!
Isn't that what America is all about?
If you don't mind pissing off 1 Billion Muslims?

If you can live with the thoughts of thousands of innocent men, women, and children dying?

If you don't mind alienating more of your traditional allies.

If you can handle a few more terrorists dedicated to knocking down your buildings?

If you can handle more of your men spilling their blood while you type war messages?

That seems oddly familiar with the Iraqi people welcoming us with open arms WHICH THEY NEVER DID! If the Iraqis hated us as much as you are implying, then we would be haveing a hell of a lot more attacks than we are haveing. Think about it a little, in a population of 25 million, we have few attacks a day. To boot, these are not even millitary engagements, most of them are terrorist bombings of civilian targets. Many of these insurgents are forigne fighters sent to Iraq from neighboring countries.

That being said, I do not belive an outright invasion of Iran would be productive. I belive we would do far better to support a populace-sparked revolution. We have 2 very larget borders that we can bring support through from, and we have esentialy cut Iran off from forigne fighters from entering the country. Every nation bordering Iran is more or less on friendly diplomatic grounds with the US.

Bush's cabinet and the current millitary leadership has shown to be flexible in it's tactics in removeing anti-American regimes in the region, as displayed by the major success in Afgahnistan and the overall continued success in Iraq(yes, overall, it is a success, and with the elections now passed, we are another large step closer to this being concluded), and by the massive differences in strategy.

I am no master strategist, and I don't have all the information, but that is my take on it.

If you don't mind pissing off 1 Billion Muslims?
If you can live with the thoughts of thousands of innocent men, women, and children dying?
If you don't mind alienating more of your traditional allies.
If you can handle a few more terrorists dedicated to knocking down your buildings?
If you can handle more of your men spilling their blood while you type war messages?
All of the above, we have already done. What's the big idea? Might as well get all the liberty-spreadin' over with while everyone still hates us, don't you think?
Listen, my post belied my stance on both the current situation in Iraq and the future one(s) which, unfortunately, WILL happen. I think it all stinks. I'm not a proponent of the US President's current, ahem, foreign policy. I'm mocking it. I'm also mocking the disillusioned "flippin' idiots" who don't fully understand what "spreading liberty" means. It means going into any country we damn well please and doing what we did in Iraq. It's not some flag-waving, ceremonius photo op. It's horrendous, callous, and it very well could be what is going to happen.