Will Iran be attacked?

That is it? The opinion of one man that ADMITS Bush did not agree with him? Talk about grasping for Straws. Got any Insiders to tell us when Bush will seize power?

How many sources do you want? Tell me the number.
 
By the way, I think a Nuclear Iran can not be allowed either and that what ever steps are required to prevent it should be taken.

So you would support the United States getting involved militarily, despite there being no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?
 
How about One that ACTUALLY is Bush saying he will attack Iran? One that does not involve the "source" earning money off of a book or speaking gigs.

First of all, I shouldn't be required to come up with a source that says Bush or Israel "WILL" attack Iran, because the title of my thread is "Will Iran be attacked?" As for your comments about the "left" claiming Bush would or might attack Iran, here is a link to an interview With John Bolton, who discussed the POSSIBILITY of an attack by either the US or Israel. Is Bolton too far left for you?


Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts - Telegraph
 
So you would support the United States getting involved militarily, despite there being no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

What would an attack on Iran mean for the U.S. troops in Iraq? How would the Iran respond?
 
What would an attack on Iran mean for the U.S. troops in Iraq? How would the Iran respond?

Well it's hard enough for us right now fighting in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone three. If we were to invade Iran then we would either have to implement a draft, or cut back forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's hard to theorize which country would lose more troops, but Obama has stated that he'd like to leave Iraq and have a larger presence in Afghanistan. So we'd have to assume, going by that, that Iraq would probably lose the most troops, though history tells us that it's unlikely we'd pull out completely. We'd probably just settle for a modest amount of troops in the region for the time being. So assuming I'm right, which this is all hypothetical, the number of troops in Iraq would go down and they'd either go to Afghanistan or Iran.

How would Iran respond? The same way any country would respond if they were invaded, they'd fight back.

But like I said, this is all hypothetical and we can't really know what would happen.
 
Well it's hard enough for us right now fighting in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone three. If we were to invade Iran then we would either have to implement a draft, or cut back forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's hard to theorize which country would lose more troops, but Obama has stated that he'd like to leave Iraq and have a larger presence in Afghanistan. So we'd have to assume, going by that, that Iraq would probably lose the most troops, though history tells us that it's unlikely we'd pull out completely. We'd probably just settle for a modest amount of troops in the region for the time being. So assuming I'm right, which this is all hypothetical, the number of troops in Iraq would go down and they'd either go to Afghanistan or Iran.

How would Iran respond? The same way any country would respond if they were invaded, they'd fight back.

But like I said, this is all hypothetical and we can't really know what would happen.

Obama has said he would leave all options on the table when it comes to Iran. He has also said he would use "all his power" to make sure Iran would not get a nuclear weapon.
I would think that, an attack on Iran would mean air strikes, not an actual invasion and rebuilding of the nation.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I think a Nuclear Iran can not be allowed either and that what ever steps are required to prevent it should be taken.

so, if Iran moves forward and starts developing a bomb, how would you respond, if you were the President?
 
Obama has said he would leave all options on the table when it comes to Iran. He has also said he would use "all his power" to make sure Iran would not get a nuclear weapon.

Obama has also said he wants to focus on Afghanistan, and I assure you he is not going to pull out of Iraq completely. If he wants to do more in Afghanistan he has to give up any ambitions he may have of attacking Iran, and vice versa. We simply don't have the resources for three wars.

What Obama obviously doesn't understand is that he actually doesn't have any power to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, not from the Constitution at any rate. He will assume he has these powers, and nobody will challenge him, but he doesn't actually have them.
 
Obama has also said he wants to focus on Afghanistan, and I assure you he is not going to pull out of Iraq completely. If he wants to do more in Afghanistan he has to give up any ambitions he may have of attacking Iran, and vice versa. We simply don't have the resources for three wars.

What Obama obviously doesn't understand is that he actually doesn't have any power to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, not from the Constitution at any rate. He will assume he has these powers, and nobody will challenge him, but he doesn't actually have them.

Who makes the rules and why do they get to make them when it comes to nukes? Why are Israel, France, and Britain allowed to have them, but Iran is not?
 
Who makes the rules and why do they get to make them when it comes to nukes? Why are Israel, France, and Britain allowed to have them, but Iran is not?

Well Iran has signed the Non-proliferation Treaty which states that they can't develop nuclear weapons, but they can develop nuclear energy for peaceful domestic purposes. The reason nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon is because they are a rogue state, and they have made some serious threats to Israel in the past. As of now, Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and is fully capable of defending itself against Iran even without them. But should Iran get a nuclear weapon, then you've got the possibility of a nuclear war.

That's basically the gist of the situation.
 
Well Iran has signed the Non-proliferation Treaty which states that they can't develop nuclear weapons, but they can develop nuclear energy for peaceful domestic purposes. The reason nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon is because they are a rogue state, and they have made some serious threats to Israel in the past. As of now, Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and is fully capable of defending itself against Iran even without them. But should Iran get a nuclear weapon, then you've got the possibility of a nuclear war.

That's basically the gist of the situation.

What about "mutually assured destruction?"
 
What about "mutually assured destruction?"

Israel is how big? Population density is what? Iran is how big? Population density is what?

Israel has had nukes how long? Has used them when? Iran doesn't. Yet. Has threatened how many times to use them?
 
Israel is how big? Population density is what? Iran is how big? Population density is what?

Israel has had nukes how long? Has used them when? Iran doesn't. Yet. Has threatened how many times to use them?

Khruschev threatened to "bury" the US. It didn't happen because he knew what trying to "bury" us would entail.

What I mean is, would Iran actually follow through with such a suicide mission? If Israel has 200 nukes, which they do, how many Iranians would be left, if Israel used, say ten percent of their arsenal?

Also, isn't it true that the Mullahs control Iran's actual foreign policy decisions, not Ahmadinejad (sp?)

Has anyone actually said they would wipe Israel off the map since Khoemeni? I have read that Ahmadinejad was misquoted.
 
Khruschev threatened to "bury" the US. It didn't happen because he knew what trying to "bury" us would entail.

What I mean is, would Iran actually follow through with such a suicide mission? If Israel has 200 nukes, which they do, how many Iranians would be left, if Israel used, say ten percent of their arsenal?

Also, isn't it true that the Mullahs control Iran's actual foreign policy decisions, not Ahmadinejad (sp?)

Has anyone actually said they would wipe Israel off the map since Khoemeni? I have read that Ahmadinejad was misquoted.

Let's see, they would have hit Chicago, we'd have hit Kiev; they'd hit Detroit, we'd hit Stalingrad....

Iran hits just about anywhere, the fallout makes it uninhabitable. Israel hits Iran first....
 
Let's see, they would have hit Chicago, we'd have hit Kiev; they'd hit Detroit, we'd hit Stalingrad....

Iran hits just about anywhere, the fallout makes it uninhabitable. Israel hits Iran first....

Ok, say israel uses 100 of them, how many Persians are left?
 
Ok, say israel uses 100 of them, how many Persians are left?

You really think they could or would? MAD is not working in the ME, that is what the 'fuss' is all about. Hell, everyone just prays about India, but particularly the leadership in Pakistan. You want more?
 
You really think they could or would? MAD is not working in the ME, that is what the 'fuss' is all about. Hell, everyone just prays about India, but particularly the leadership in Pakistan. You want more?

This was not supposed to be an adversarial thread. I am simply asking why MAD wouldn't work as a deterrant in relations between Iran and Israel. I was hoping you could defend or attack Podhoretz's claims that MAD wouldn't work between the two nations.
 
Israel is how big? Population density is what? Iran is how big? Population density is what?

Israel has had nukes how long? Has used them when? Iran doesn't. Yet. Has threatened how many times to use them?

How many times has the US threatened Iran?
 

Forum List

Back
Top