The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

keda

I've been pretty distracted the past few weeks so not following the news or current affairs at all - but still a no...if there are any strikes to be done it'll be the Israelis that do it.

stroller

No, "we" do not know it's coming, and Brown is not on board to conduct airstrikes. It would be rather foolish thing to do.

From your link:

sabang

My prognosis-
There won't be air strikes.
Iran will get nuclear power.
It will stop short of developing nuclear weapons.

keda

hehe...if the free world could rely on your prognosis there'd be no serious concerns.

sabang

^ True, but the mere 'threat' of having nuke technology will beef up Iran's stature, at least in it's own eyes.
Defying the IAEA & rest of the World would effectively give carte blanche for the Hawks to do what they will. Remember that Iran is at least five years away from even being able to have enough nasty stuff to develop a nuke, at the most optimistic estimate. The plutonium will not go unnoticed.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

keda

Well that's just it, the hawks can do nothing at all aside from bluster, and the repercussions of a strike by the US and/or Europe would be unpleasant at best...an invasion is not even an option.

Otoh, Israel has done it before and wouldn't hesitate to take out any Iranian facility deemed a serious threat.

sabang

A reasonably sane voice from the NY Times-

President Ahmadinejad, whose job is more or less ceremonial, is not the commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. He has never advocated "genocide," and his expressed wish that the "occupation regime over Jerusalem" (i.e., the Israeli government) eventually vanish has been mistranslated.
As for the rest, the candidates simply assume that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program, which has not been proven. It certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and the National Intelligence Estimate indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 -- and then only if the international environment were conducive to the needed high-tech imports. (Ahmadinejad, by the way, will not be in power in 2016.) Also, someone really needs to let the Republicans know that Iran is Shiite, meaning it abhors Sunni fundamentalists and rejects the caliphate.

iran | Salon.com

JimmyCA

good one, I hope to be out of the country at that moment

simple brilliance from the man with no head

keda

[quote=JimmyCA;428338]Within a few months so is the rest of the planet, which sort of buggers up any idea of regression to the 7th century.

Milkman

As of the date of this post, I'm with Keda, here.

The U.S. won't do it.

If anyone else does it, Israel will....but I don't think they have enough resources to do so.

mad_dog

If the US did invade Iran the Jihadists, nationalists and assorted freedom fighters would have 1000s of miles of ungoverned contiguous terrain from Tora Bora in the east to Al Anbar in the West. It would truely be the garveyard of the American tryanny.

sabang

The Bush/Cheney administration is up to it's old tricks again.

It turns out that the US Netional Intelligence Estimation (NIE) on Iran has been held up for over a year by the Whitehouse, because it's findings do not match Cheneys empty rhetoric. So far, it has been sent back three times for redrafting.

It still dissents from Cheneys predictable warmongering and tubthumping, so in it's wisdom "The White House has now apparently decided to release the "unsatisfactory" draft NIE, but without making its key findings public."

Sound familiar?

I have to ask this question- is Cheney genuinely mad?
And how in a Democracy can a government withhold from the public this information, whilst making a case for violent action based on allegations that are contradicted by their own Intelligence community?

Full Article- Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Milkman

Potent analysis, mad_dag. The US would have a lot of work on its hands.

Sabang:Frighteningly, so.

And the NY Times has lied, and the adjectives used to describe the new thread and bogeyman, Ahmadinejad, who is not even the leader of Iran. He has very little power, and no power or authority over Iran's armed forces.

The US called Khatami (a reformer) a powerless figurehead, but when Ahmadinejad replaced him, he is now the big, bad, evil, danger.

I don't buy it? But the does US public?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

keda

Just seems odd that the left are more concerned with what Bush might do about the Iranians killing US soldiers by proxy, than the fact that the Iranians are effectively killing US soldiers.

Milkman

I don't know the stance of folks for the latter sentence.

This is Iran's backyard. The US should not expect Iran to sit by idle, when the U.S. is in Iraq, half a world a way, invading, overthrowing the government, and causing the chaos and death.

IMO, The Americans have killed more than the Iranian are killing in Iraq.

Yes, the so-called Left is mostly Anti-war, but so are large percentages of those on the Middle and on the Right.

raycarey

any evidence for that "fact"?

any at all?

c'mon, just the slightest piece?

an iota?

well?

keda

Um yes I can agree the Left is mostly anti-war, but more than fingers on a mitten are also anti-American.

raycarey

i guess that's a no then.

poor keda.

JimmyCA

I don't have any problem with what this guy says. All he wants is what everyone else has.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

chinthee