America will attack Iran

[strictlybroadband]

They planned to attack much earlier, but got a little stuck in Iraq. Now it looks like the Yanks are planning their attack on Iran for sometime this year. This is something the hawks have wanted since Iran left the Empire in 1979. This war will make the Iraq war look like a minor skirmish.

[wankmaster]

What are the chances of the UK government going in to this one is support? Not great I'd think.

All empires come to and end, usually through overreaching themselves, and this may be the beginning of the end for the American Empire. I didn't think I'd see the end of the Soviet Bloc in my lifetime, and one day the wall came down. It will happen suddenly, but the chance of world chaos that may follow doesn't give me much joy.

[spann0]

Yes they seem to be ramping it up but I don't think they are stupid enough to start a ground war I mean they can't even control Iraq

[adultbusiness]

They planned to attack much earlier, but got a little stuck in Iraq. Now it looks like the Yanks are planning their attack on Iran for sometime this year. This is something the hawks have wanted since Iran left the Empire in 1979. This war will make the Iraq war look like a minor skirmish.

The educated hunch is that they won't do anything until next year before Bush leaves the Whitehouse... but I'm still not sure, if you look at the reaction to yesterdays 'the Iranians helped kill our soldiers' PR stunt, it really didn't work... they would have absoloutely no backup both internally and externally for any millitary action. Fortunately, they cried wolf too many times in Iraq.

[strictlybroadband]

Yes they seem to be ramping it up but I don't think they are stupid enough to start a ground war I mean they can't even control Iraq

They'll more likely revert to aerial bombardment. That way they lose few lives, kill a lot more civilians but CNN won't be there to notice. They bombed Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos for 9 years.

[strictlybroadband]

Fortunately, they cried wolf too many times in Iraq.

I always laugh when they complain about Iran "meddling" in Iraqi affairs. They really have no sense of irony!

[Johnny Kleenexxx]

the Fox & co media propaganda machine is all over Iranian "connections"

the Neocon finger of blame waves again . . keep the fear . . create the enemy

i think they risk over-stretching themselves because they believe their own hype

[Guest]

An attack is likely, but the prospect of invasion is so remote I have trouble even entertaining the concept.

[dvtimes]

They may plan this, but will there be suport for it?

The president is now extreamly unpopular and so will have very little suport for such a war.

[strictlybroadband]

They may plan this, but will there be suport for it?

The president is now extreamly unpopular and so will have very little suport for such a war.

The American people are so gullible that they will believe Iran poses a threat and support the war for a few months. Then they'll realise they've been suckered (yet again) and withdraw support. The next president will keep on bombing and blame Bush for the problem.

[adultbusiness]

The big difference between Iraq and now is that Bush is a lame president. Therefore, no European leader or US politician will be scared to go against him... last time they knew they would have to deal with him for another term...

[daveydude]

The US government / media machine has generated support for all its recent interventions in that area on false pretenses:

Desert Storm - the Kuwaiti baby scandal. Iraqi soldiers were meant to have tossed Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to steal the equipment. This was a lie, the expert witness was a relative of the Kuwaiti royal family and the whole thing was concocted by a PR company.

Afghanistan - we need to kill the 9/11 plotters. But the "terrorists" on the planes were all Saudi nationals.

Iraq - we must destroy Saddam's invisible WMDs. Need I say more.

[TAC]

I cant see the dollar getting any better for us until Bush is out.

Id be surprised if Bush could get enough support to attack Iran at the moment. He's very unpopular cos of Iraq and I cant see the USA public supporting another war

[spann0]

They'll more likely revert to aerial bombardment. That way they lose few lives, kill a lot more civilians but CNN won't be there to notice. They bombed Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos for 9 years.

I think if they don't bomb the nuclear stuff at some point Israel will and that will cause some serious shit

[fredicus]

I think if they don't bomb the nuclear stuff at some point Israel will and that will cause some serious shit
That's where my money would go, an Israeli air attack, ( egged on by the US ) whilst the US still has control over Iranian air space.

[Johnny Kleenexxx]

An attack is likely, but the prospect of invasion is so remote I have trouble even entertaining the concept.
i agree, a ground invasion would be idiotic given that they don't yet control

the 2 countries they are currently occupying . .

i think we should focus less on the US "anti terror" rhetoric & more on their private business agenda

my biggest fear is that Bush will repeat a false flag operation on the scale of 9/11 again

as a catalyst to regenerate public support for war, except this time Iranian patsies

they are "teflon" so far as being accessories to the mass murder in New York, so they may be feeling cocky

[Skunk]

That's where my money would go, an Israeli air attack, ( egged on by the US ) whilst the US still has control over Iranian air space.

I agree, and then the US will get involved to defend Israel against any repercussions/retaliation. The US have already deployed Patriot anti missile systems into Iraq and there are several US strike forces stationed in and around the Gulf of Hormuz all with amphibean landing capabilities. There has also been talk in the US of re-instating the draft for military or public service.

I think it will come sooner than later, it wouldn't suprise me if Iran was attacked before Tony Bliar* leaves/is forced out of office, thereby giving him a reason to stay in power.


*knot a spellink misstake

[ciggiez]

No, I can't see it myself.

A war would just be too unpopular.

I don't understand US politics too much, but wouldn't Bush need to get the Democrat majority congress to give the green light?

That's not going to happen.

It's just too risky. Iran can blockade the Straits of Hormuz and turn off the oil supply from the Middle East.

[strictlybroadband]

It's just too risky. Iran can blockade the Straits of Hormuz and turn off the oil supply from the Middle East.

The minute Iran did that, every Republican and Democrat will support a war. So all Bush has to do is provoke Iran - which he seems to be doing very well!

[daveydude]

The US have already deployed Patriot anti missile systems into Iraq and there are several US strike forces stationed in and around the Gulf of Hormuz all with amphibean landing capabilities.

The effectiveness of the Patriot system is debatable:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/

[fredicus]

The effectiveness of the Patriot system is debatable:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/
Downright scary, not a bit surprised that they decided the tornado 's iff was at fault, even though there was no proof ... fredicus sighs and shakes his head.

[Skunk]

It's just too risky. Iran can blockade the Straits of Hormuz and turn off the oil supply from the Middle East.

Hence the massive buildup of US Naval forces in the Gulf of Hormuz.


The effectiveness of the Patriot system is debatable:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/

Effective or no, they have been deployed in Iraq. And Israel tested it's own anti-ballistic missile system, Arrow, successfully today which funnily enough is also the 28th Anniversary of the Iranian Revolution.

[Guest]

I don't understand US politics too much, but wouldn't Bush need to get the Democrat majority congress to give the green light?

Technically no, Bush can authorise any military action all by himself. However, he does have to go to Congress to get the money for such ventures. That said, once troops are commited there's no chance a Congress of any colour would refuse the money to support them.

[-HF]

I don't understand US politics too much, but wouldn't Bush need to get the Democrat majority congress to give the green light?

actual support only for a declaration of war. something they didn't issue on other occasions either.

if the military sees the need for a preemptive measurements, like a surgical strike to get the Iranians going, they'll have Dubya's OK and just present some scapegoats afterwards.

[wankmaster]

I don't understand US politics too much, but wouldn't Bush need to get the Democrat majority congress to give the green light?


War Powers Act of 1973 would seem to me to say that the president does need the support and continued support of congress to start and continue any hostilities ( decared as war or not ).

I believe this act came in after the Vietnam "war" to curb presidential powers.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

( But I'm no expert in the US constitution either. )1

[ciggiez]

Although I'm a pacifist and a war would be a really bad thing, there's just something about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face that does make me want to punch it in:

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Iran-s-New-President-Doesn-t-Want-to-Make-Friends-with-the-US-2.jpg

He's just a cocky little bastard that needs taking down a few pegs. (Mind you, I think that about George Bush as well)

[adultbusiness]

Although I'm a pacifist and a war would be a really bad thing, there's just something about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face that does make me want to punch it in:

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Iran-s-New-President-Doesn-t-Want-to-Make-Friends-with-the-US-2.jpg

He's just a cocky little bastard that needs taking down a few pegs.

Don't worry, if all goes to plan you'll see his hanging video on Youtube by xmas.... :)

[Guest]

War Powers Act of 1973 would seem to me to say that the president does need the support and continued support of congress to start and continue any hostilities ( decared as war or not ).

The devil's in the detail:

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances"

Consult being the operative word. He doesn't need Congressional approval.

[strictlybroadband]

Although I'm a pacifist and a war would be a really bad thing, there's just something about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face that does make me want to punch it in:

Yeah, he's a nasty religious, conservative hawk (you'd think Bush would love him!) But he WAS elected. And he only won the last election against the liberal candidate because Bush was threatening an attack.

He's now VERY unpopular at home and the only thing keeping him in power is the American threat.

[nizla]

Bolton Wanderers have a newish Iranian player, looks like he might be attacking Arsenal tomorrow!

[wankmaster]

The devil's in the detail:

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances"

Consult being the operative word. He doesn't need Congressional approval.

"SEC. 5.(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."

[Guest]

What constitutes a 'specific statutory authorization'?

In any event, none of that stops the President sending in the troops in the first place. In a situation like Iran, Bush could bomb the fuck out of the country and have all the pilots out of there before all those senators and congressman had taken their morning piss.

[wankmaster]

'Specific statutory authorization' would be a declaration of war or other hostilities by congress. The act seems to be designed to stop the president just going to war without approval, but there is a loophole by which the president can act where the US is being directly threatened. In any case he is commander in chief, so if the commie nukes were on their way, then of course he would act. In practice I would say he would have to go and seek approval for any significant action against Iran.

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations"

You have to read the whole act to fully understand it, as you say the devil is in the detail. It sets out timelimits and the actions of congress etc.

As a sidenote some have suggested that the whole act is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the presidential oath to protect and defend the US, but this one has not been tested in court.

As I said before, I'm no expert, but it's my opinion that he'd need to seek approval to invade, unlike our PM who has no such constraint.