1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

POLL: Will the US go to war against Iran?

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Ragusa, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG] Simple question, yes or no or don't know. My personal opinion is a high probability for 'yes'.

    I don't find Administration babbling that they don't plan to 'invade' Iran reassuring, because anyway the current most plausible scenario is a massive air strike, not an invasion with ground troops. Never mention that spirit thingie, and that both constitute acts of war.

    Gates said this: "With respect to Iran, first of all, the president has made clear; the secretary of State has made clear; I've made clear -- nobody is planning -- we are not planning for a war with Iran.'' Well, 'we' is less than 'nobody'. While the President, SecState and SecDef might not plan anything, but say, spend their time munching pizza, their staff or the VP may very well do so.

    Considering their track record, I think this reading is realistic.

    Perfect example, and worth a thread of its own (*HINT*), is Alberto Gonzales claiming with a straight face (Quick Time link)
    You read right. The document doesn't explicitly tell that it applies to everyone, ergo, picking US citizens and deny them this right is constitutional. Oh yes? That guy still has his job??! I rather think it was so bloody obvious that it does apply to everyone, that at the time of creation it was not neccessary to even mention it. Oh never mind.
    The absence of public outrage over this is IMO the scariest thing of all. Getting :yot: some more, and speaking about Gonzales -- doesn't the US right wing have an aversion against sleazy, frivolous trial lawyers? Would you buy a used car from Gonzales?

    I think the Bush men cling to their statements in a very similar way Gonzales does. After all, 'invasion' is something different than 'bombing' - ergo, the Administration didn't lie when their electorate sees them bombing.

    I don't put any faith in Administration denials on this.

    [ February 13, 2007, 09:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

    Poll Information
    This poll contains 1 question(s). 27 user(s) have voted.
    You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

    Poll Results: Will the US go to war against Iran? (27 votes.)

    Will the US go to war against Iran? (Choose 1)
    * Yes, there will be war - 41% (11)
    * No, there won't be war - 33% (9)
    * Dunno - 26% (7)
     
  2. Cúchulainn Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1
    The US needs someone to blame for their ****ups in Iraq.
     
  3. Shoshino

    Shoshino Irritant Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Media:
    66
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    nah, there wont be war against iran.

    itll take too long for bush to muster a force to attack, if he attacked now with little or no planning its possible the forces would have their arses handed to them. bush will be out of office by the time a force could be ready and the next president wont be stupid enough
     
  4. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    There's always the old saw about being *thisclose* to victory when they were backstabbed by leftist opposition at home. :rolleyes:

    I voted "Unsure". I am not certain even Bush/Cheney/Gates are maniacs enough to also attack Iran with the US military already spread pretty thin as it is. Unless they count on a draft to "surge" the Army's numbers.

    It is also a question how cooperative the new Congress will be.

    On the other hand, the current rhetorics about Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, including bombs allegedly manifactured in Iran, sounds ominously like the rhetorics in 2003 about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US administration may be looking for an excuse like The Maine or The Bay of Tonkin.

    I hope Bush has the wits to stay off Iran, or that Congress has the balls to tell him "No!" this time.
     
  5. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Shoshino,
    as for little or no planning you are mistaken. Air strikes are being planned by Stratcom, at least since May 2005. The disturbing thing is that Stratcom is normally tasked with nulcear war planning, but attacking Iran can be understood as a strategic task in its own right.

    The appointment of naval aviator Admiral Fallon as new head of CENTCOM, where two ground wars are raging, suggests that air power is supposed to play a much greater role in this theatre. Considering the limited utility of air power in counter-insurgency warefare, that suggests a shifted emphasis away from Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Carriers have with much publicity been moved into the theatre. Bombers and tankers can arrive in Diego Garcia or other forward bases within 48 hours, probably less. The only thing in question is the aftermath, and what will happen. Pretty much every retired General and Colonel is in utter horror about this. Not so the administration and the Transformation Cultists who pray to St. Douhet to fix the 'Iranian threat'.
    Cheney and his goons do not see the US hamstrung by being bogged down in Iraq. Rather they see most of their air power 'underutilised'. Insofar one doesn't need to really think hard to see what advice they'll give the 'Decider'. The 'aftermath question' doesn't arise, because the overwhelming US airpower will shock and awe the Iranians to beg for peace, and everything will be swell.
    Like in Lebanon last summer when Israeli air power decisively defeated Hezbollah. That's what all these 'old think' generals don't get.

    Not to mention the question not to negotiate with 'evil' out of principle. The Administration will play tough until they see no other choice but either bombing or negotiating, that means they'll probably choose bombing, because everything else would be lack of resolve, Munich 1938 -- appeasement, surrender. Maybe it's just a variant of Nixons 'madman doctrine', but I doubt we're that lucky.


    EDIT: If you believe that strategic bombing will result in an early surrender of the enemy, at low cost to yourself, it becomes much more attractive than the give-and-take of a negotiation that will only compromise your 'moral clarity'. That coupled with the faith in 'American Exceptionalism' makes for a toxic cocktail. In fact, it is a receipe for war as a standard operating procedure of foreign policy and not as a last resort. That is also the reason why 'transformation' gives the neo-cons such a major hard-on. US technological supremacy only makes credible their wet dreams of 'Global Benevolent Hegemony'. Besides, author Robert Kagan and his bro Frederick are founding members of PNAC. Frederick at AEI directed the creation of the 'surge plan', titled "Choosing Victory -- A plan for success in Iraq" and is said to have presented it to Bush who is said to have liked it a lot. The neo-cons are alive and kicking./EDIT

    [ February 13, 2007, 16:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
     
  6. Shoshino

    Shoshino Irritant Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Media:
    66
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    how long did they spend planning Iraq? they planned the air campaign with ruthless efficency, but then dwindled on their ground work. i have no doubt that the US could bomb Iran back to the stone age, but as for a ground campaign, i dont think they have what it takes.
     
  7. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
  8. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    436
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought we beat this horse to death in the 'where will Bush attack next' thread.

    My answer is no.

    The US does not have the forces available for another conflict. Period. There are no US Military advisors that believe you can win a war without ground troops.

    Planned? You've got to be kidding me. The US Military has strikes and operations 'planned' for every conceivable threat. That's the job of the military -- to be ready to go to war. That does not mean the US will EVER use those plans.

    The nomination of ADM Fallon is entirely a political appointment. He has an excellent reputation for fairness and has some international political experience -- just the thing needed for the Middle East right now. By putting a Navy Admiral in, both the White House and the Congress know he will 'clean ship' and remove those that have been embarrassing the US in CENTCOM. Fallon is also the most experienced theater commander in the United States military. Who would be more qualified?
     
  9. Dinsdale Gems: 13/31
    Latest gem: Ziose


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    583
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Of course we did, but there are some who miss no opportunity to rag on the U.S.A.

    I don't think the U.S. will attack Iran. I think/hope that the American people will not tolerate such a course of action should it be proposed. It is true that the government doesn't seem to really care what the citizens actually think or want when pushing their various unconstitutional schemes. Nevertheless, I do think that even leaders as arrogant as ours will stop short of starting a war with Iran. OTOH, if King George were to start a war as a lame duck, it would be left to the new administration to try to extricate the country from the situation, which would be extremely difficult. Still, I say no.

    BTW, Bush and company are NOT conservatives/righ wingers in any way, shape or form.
     
  10. joacqin

    joacqin Confused Jerk Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2001
    Messages:
    6,116
    Media:
    2
    Likes Received:
    121
    The rhetorics are there, the will is probably there I just hope and believe that reality will bonk some of the guys in charge on the head and make them restrain themselves. I do think we are likely to see missile attacks though but hopefully not on any greater scale.

    War! Huh! What is it good for?!
     
  11. Tassadar Gems: 23/31
    Latest gem: Black Opal


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,516
    Likes Received:
    8
    No. They may be warmongers, but they're not stupid. Well not *that* stupid. Hopefully...
     
  12. Morgoroth

    Morgoroth Just because I happen to have tentacles, it doesn'

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    45
    I'll give a generous 30% percent chance of US attacking Iran but I'll give a healthy 60% chance of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities within the next six months. I don't think that even Bush would pull of a war against Iran at this point. They would never go for a full scale invasion, to that I give only a 5% chance. It simply would not be realistic at this point. Iranians probably meddle in Iran but that's to be expected and is really no reason for war. Israel will end up with doing the dirty work and bomb the facilities in Ishafan to oblivion in which case EU (and possibly even US) will give them some criticism but silently really thank Israel for solving the problem with an Iranian nuclear programme with a single devastating blow.

    [ February 14, 2007, 12:23: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]
     
  13. The Magister Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,364
    Media:
    16
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Why the hell wouldn't they attack Iran? They seem to fight anything that threatens there position as the worlds No.1 country (at least in their eyes).

    What's one more war to add to the already full track record?
     
  14. Darkwolf Gems: 18/31
    Latest gem: Horn Coral


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on your definition of war. Technically Clinton commited an act of war every time he fired off a bunch of Tomahawks into terrorist camps that happened to be on the soil of another nation without getting the consent of that nation first.

    Will we invade Iran...only if a nuke goes off that is traced back to them.

    Will we "bomb them back to the stone age" (btbttsa), probably, especially if the definition of btbttsa is anything like the definition like the definition "shock and awe". :doh:
     
  15. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think there can be a bombing campaign without an invasion to follow up. No war has yet been won exclusively from the air without support from ground troops.

    If the Pentagon and the White House are not aware of this, they might initiate an air offensive (i.e. a bombing campaign) and subsequently find out that they have to either call it off or follow up with a full-scale invasion.

    If they are aware of this, they might still initiate the bombing, and subsequently demand support for the invasion they were planning all along, "unless of course you want the terrorists to win". Presenting the world (and in particular the US electorate) with a fait accompli and then demanding support and national unity ("Are you with us, or are you a commie traitor, a defaitist, and a terrorist sympathizer?") is a trick they've used before.

    I still hope the administration has the common sense to realize that invading Iran would stretch their forces too thinly. Or at least that the results in the midterm elections is a powerful hint that Bush and his administration have used up their goodwill with the American people. (It is important to remember that the US Administration, The United States, and the American people are three different entities!)
     
  16. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    There seems to be an impression here that the current Administration is seeing the Iran issue in rational terms. Their track record suggests quite the opposite.

    End of last year Israel got a golden offer from Syria. It is very clear that a peace agreement between Israel and Syria would remove a lot of tension and should help adress many problems. Israel needs less enemies, not more.
    Point is, it went nowhere because Olmert explicitly refused the offer in order to not 'undermine' Bush, who was at the time under pressure after Baker's ISG report, which called for talks with Syria. That means two things: That the Bush administration position on Syria is to the right even of a right-wing Israeli government. That is IMO quite remarkable*. Second, that Olmert by pointing to Bush basically sais 'if it was up to me ...' distances himself from Bush. Also remarkable. EDIT:It also suggests a third thing -- that the Bushies still insist on their policy of regime change in Syria and on the principle of not-negotiating with 'evildoers'./EDIT

    What this episode tells me in respect to Iran is this: If the Bush men are still that ideologically rigid on Syria, I can't see how they would be any more flexible on Iran, especially considering their current rhetoric. That is a point I see ignored.

    The accusations against Iran are basically 'outrage stuff' and their steady repitition suggests to me a concerted effort to demonise Iran, quite along the lines of what was before Iraq. The US increase pressure and tension, and arresting Iranian diplomats is nothing else but an overt provocation. The 'surge' itself, and the probable focus on shia militias like Sadr's, can also be understood as an effort to demolish Iranian retaliation capabilities in Iraq, and as such, as attack preparations.
    The pieces are in place. In the absence of progress in Iraq, and in absence of unconditional Iranian surrender and mounting domestic pressure, the temptation to pull the trigger might at some point just become irresistible.

    Unless McCain or Liebermann get elected as next president, chances are only Bush is crazy enough to 'tackle the Iranian threat'. That would add a certain urgency to make the best of the options being unitary executive commander in chief offers, and would be as such an additional incentive for attack. That also is a line that is circling around in comments for a while. With carrier groups and troops being rotated into the theatre, deployment schedules of usually six months suggest to me a heightened potential for escalation for the next six to eight months.

    I'd like to stress again, that the Bush men most probably do not see their ground forces being bogged down as an obstacle. Problem is that when they want a brief and fulminant preventive air strike and that's it - Iran might just not agree and say: 'The fight is over when we say so.' The consequences are unpredictable, with plenty of opportunity for disaster. Iraq + Iran might beome America's Stalingrad at the Tigris.

    That doesn't mean it's certain the US attack, but that it shouldn't be dismissed as 'Doggie is just wanting to play!'.

    * and in tune with neo-con Meyraw Wurmser's (wife of David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney) comment in an interview that DC's neo-connery was outraged that Israel last summer only hit Lebanon, and didn't attack Syria, too.

    [ February 14, 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
     
  17. The Shaman Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    54
    Wow, Mrs. Wurmser is quite the idealist. Apparently she thinks that invading your neighbors when you're already up SC is something completely natural. I wonder what she'd say if Israel did start serious peace talks with Syria and publicly announced that it won't bother with Iran, and if Iran really gets a bomb Tehran won't need lightbulbs to glow in the dark.

    I wonder if Cheney's heart would be up to it.
     
  18. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG] Well, the point I was trying to illustrate by pointing out Wurmser is that generally there seems little comprehension about how radical and dogmatic the Bush Administration's foreign policies actually is, and how serious these people are about about 'not negotiating with evil but defeating it'. That's not just some politico crafting his words for sound bites. They are dead serious. Currently this is the official US Administration stance in US foreign policy. And they clearly do not see war as a last resort, but as a completely legitimate tool to achieve a political goal.

    And to answer to Dinsdale and T2, this is not 'raking on the US', but to underline what these people are capable of when left to themselves, say when ignored, and as such, in my earnest way, a reminder that they should not be taken lightly. That said, I really hope I'm indeed just an utter pessimist, and wrong.
     
  19. Carcaroth

    Carcaroth I call on the priests, saints and dancin' girls ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    5
    Unless Iran backs down on it's Nuclear plans, I believe there is almost certainly going to be a bombing war by George W.
    The rhetoric that I see reported here indicates that anything else would cause a massive loss of face to GWB - something I don't see him taking very well.
     
  20. Nakia

    Nakia The night is mine Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5,575
    Media:
    102
    Likes Received:
    135
    Gender:
    Female
    I wanted to vote No War but ended up voting dunno.

    I said this a couple of years ago but I'll say it again. I do not trust Bush and scares the hell out of me. I won't say more than that because I don't want to get myself or the Board in trouble.

    No, we are not in a position to wage a ground war but who knows maybe the Executive Branch does think we could win with just air Strikes. And if there were enough we might win that battle but IMO we loose our allies.
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.