FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Bush and Iraq... can you feel the love???

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


LumberJack
Doesn't he have enough problems without trying to make Iran another one. Both the Ahmadenejad and Bush remind me of a pair of roosters in a cockfight over Iraq.

Do you think American troops will be fighting Iranian before then end of Bush's term... whether it would be on Iranian or Iraqi soil???


Quote tags added by Moderating Team. Please read the rules regarding posting text not your own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070129bush-iran,1,7628599.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Asserting the right of the U.S. military inside Iraq to defend itself and Iraqis against threats from Tehran, President Bush vowed Monday that Iranian aggression inside Iraq would be met with American force.

At the same time, Bush asserted his determination to resolve what the U.S. sees as Iran's ambitions for nuclear weaponry through diplomatic channels.

With a two-track message of stern military warnings and promises of peaceful diplomacy, Bush is confronting an increasingly complicated conflict with the Iranian government.

"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "We will do what it takes to protect our troops. It makes common sense for the commander in chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people—and the Iraqi government—that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

And , during an interview conducted in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, the president suggested that it is "very important ... not to mix issues" involving Iran.
Moonspider
LumberJack wrote:
Doesn't he have enough problems without trying to make Iran another one. Both the Ahmadenejad and Bush remind me of a pair of roosters in a cockfight over Iraq.


I don't think Bush is making Iran a problem. Ahmadenejad is making himself and Iran a problem. The united front of Europe and the U.S. against the Iranian nuclear program is an example.

To be honest, I don't think you'll see U.S. forces attacking Iran. (With the possible exception of a naval engagement. Those waters are tight and things can escalate out of control quickly at sea even if an attack is not planned.) I say this because there seems to be a lot of discontent in Iran with Ahmadenejad. The Ayatollah recently refused to meet with him. His party lost regional elections. And the people seem discontented with his rhetoric against the West as well as his dismal failure on meeting campaign promises (such as the economy).

An attack on a country tends to unify the populace behind its leaders, not widen fissures. As long as this trend continues, I don't think any U.S. administration will do anything to jeopardize it.

Respectfully,
M
reywall
as a chineses,i don't like war,no wether what is the reason of the war!
LumberJack wrote:
Doesn't he have enough problems without trying to make Iran another one. Both the Ahmadenejad and Bush remind me of a pair of roosters in a cockfight over Iraq.

Do you think American troops will be fighting Iranian before then end of Bush's term... whether it would be on Iranian or Iraqi soil???

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070129bush-iran,1,7628599.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

WASHINGTON -- Asserting the right of the U.S. military inside Iraq to defend itself and Iraqis against threats from Tehran, President Bush vowed Monday that Iranian aggression inside Iraq would be met with American force.

At the same time, Bush asserted his determination to resolve what the U.S. sees as Iran's ambitions for nuclear weaponry through diplomatic channels.

With a two-track message of stern military warnings and promises of peaceful diplomacy, Bush is confronting an increasingly complicated conflict with the Iranian government.

"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "We will do what it takes to protect our troops. It makes common sense for the commander in chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people—and the Iraqi government—that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

And , during an interview conducted in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, the president suggested that it is "very important ... not to mix issues" involving Iran.
ocalhoun
reywall wrote:
as a chineses,i don't like war,no wether what is the reason of the war!

Sometimes you don't get a choice.
bangala
Moonspider wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
Doesn't he have enough problems without trying to make Iran another one. Both the Ahmadenejad and Bush remind me of a pair of roosters in a cockfight over Iraq.


I don't think Bush is making Iran a problem. Ahmadenejad is making himself and Iran a problem. The united front of Europe and the U.S. against the Iranian nuclear program is an example.

To be honest, I don't think you'll see U.S. forces attacking Iran. (With the possible exception of a naval engagement. Those waters are tight and things can escalate out of control quickly at sea even if an attack is not planned.) I say this because there seems to be a lot of discontent in Iran with Ahmadenejad. The Ayatollah recently refused to meet with him. His party lost regional elections. And the people seem discontented with his rhetoric against the West as well as his dismal failure on meeting campaign promises (such as the economy).

An attack on a country tends to unify the populace behind its leaders, not widen fissures. As long as this trend continues, I don't think any U.S. administration will do anything to jeopardize it.

Respectfully,
M


Your analysis about the possibility of engagment in a war with Iran makes sense. In addition to that, the Bush administration is now trying to find their way out of Iraq and involvement in another war with Iran contradicts with that objective. In fact, according to Gates' report, the US should consider now creating some sort of dialogue between Iran/Syria and USA. Honesly, though, I sometimes feel that the present US administration is not following a clear and sound strategy in the middle east. The recent war in Lebanon and the backing off from supporting democracy in the region are two examples in this regard. Therefore, although it doesn't make sense, a war with Iran is still possible with the present US administration!
theem
The thing is that America can not afford any more wars !!!
and my opinion is with IAEA " if they have a legal right to use that power .. then

Quote:
why not IRAN ??

Question
I don't really understand why ???
Soulfire
I'd like to start off by saying that this belongs in "The Middle East Conflict" thread at the top of the page.

Or this link: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-44442.html

And secondly, it is my opinion that (given the disproval of the war in Iraq), we will simply have to wait for Iran to unleash an arsenol of nuclear weapons on us, crippling our infrastructure, before we begin any sort of diplomatic negotiations.
markrc99
The premise here is simply what is regurgitated repeatedly on the corporate controlled propaganda box. The Middle East hasn't had self determination for centuries. The regional wars, particularly after WWI, have all been manufactured wars, this one in Iraq is no different.

The very gullible masses actually believe the US subjected the people of Iraq to a conventional war in an attempt to liberate them or protect America from Saddam Hussein. How incredibly absurd! ...lol...The US installed Hussein, sold him the bio-chemical nasties they then told you posed a serious threat to our national security. They blatantly, right in your face, manufactured the evidence they presented to you as justification to bomb & kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

At the behest of his handlers, Saddam was indeed a monster, making the US appear civil and righteous as they removed & killed him. Western intervention, with the ruling class' burning desire to CONTINUE to monopolize the region's lucrative resources is all this is about. At further expense to you and the people of the Middle East. That's the only war there is on this conquered planet. Control the oil and you control this world.

The border of nation premise no longer exists! It applies to you & I, but not to the Energy Barons or the International Banking Cartels that have absolute influence absolutely everywhere. The real issues are things like exploding global population and environmental degradation ... their plan to address these issues is absolute insanity...They, not fundamentalists will be behind the bio-terror and diseases soon to sweep the earth.
wise
In my humble opinion, this on going war in IRAQ is just something that totally immoral. If you gonna see the total expenses on this stupid war, you would surely be awed. It could have been spent more maturely. For instance, it could be used to fund research on AIDS. It would have been a great help to Humanity. The self proclaimed super power, could have helped the Africans. In a way, the world would have become a better place. Well, it is obvious, that it not a war to liberate the IRAQI but a war for being able to have a good bargain for the Petrol. the so called "precious energy". Just imagine living in a better world.
LostOverThere
Bush is worse then Hitler.
Moonspider
wise wrote:
In my humble opinion, this on going war in IRAQ is just something that totally immoral. If you gonna see the total expenses on this stupid war, you would surely be awed. It could have been spent more maturely. For instance, it could be used to fund research on AIDS. It would have been a great help to Humanity. The self proclaimed super power, could have helped the Africans. In a way, the world would have become a better place. Well, it is obvious, that it not a war to liberate the IRAQI but a war for being able to have a good bargain for the Petrol. the so called "precious energy". Just imagine living in a better world.


In modern society, oil is one of the most indispensable substances on the planet. Without it, food that feeds the billions of people in the world does not get to market. In Canada for example, food travels on average 5,000 miles before it gets on a consumer's table. In the U.S. it is 1,500 miles. And here I am only speaking of distribution. That does not even include the fuel used to produce the crops. That is just to name one aspect of civilization that is utterly dependent upon oil that has nothing whatsoever to do with luxury.

Oil is just as good a resource to fight over as anything else. And in this age, it is more precious than water.

IMHO, you are going to see the whole world going at it in your lifetime, with people starving the world over because inflation is through the roof globally and food can't get to market as the U.S., China, Russia, Europe, Japan, et. al. fight for those last drops. If you think we are going to figure a way out of this coming crisis before it hits, I am afraid you are deluding yourself. I've become very pessimistic as of late regarding the oil problem based on what I have seen.

So, to be honest, I personally don't have a problem fighting for oil. It is necessary for civilization as we know it to exist. And the fact is there is not enough to go around much longer.

BTW, the United States is one of the leading nations in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

http://usinfo.state.gov/af/africa/aid_to_africa.html
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/

LostOverThere wrote:
Bush is worse then Hitler.


How so? I love hearing blanket statements like that. Please provide some examples. I am anxious to hear the justification for such a belief.

Respectfully,
M
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.