Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
  1. Kind of seems like that is where we are headed. The signs are all around. Bush has shifted his focus, and seems as if he is trying to build up a case for war (Iran funding bad guys in Iraq). The Iran-U.S. dialogue has become more aggressive. Iranian officials being arrested in Iraq, and their places raided. More troops headed to Iraq.

    Quote from his state of the union address: “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

    P.S. I just heard on the news that US officials met with Israeli Military Officials, there is a Navy build up in the Persian Gulf, and the United States may be conducting missions in Iran to try to undermine it from the inside (mind missions).

    I think it is definitely happening before his term ends.
  2. i remember back in 1998 during the world cup we lost to those fucking idiots and those iranians were going crazy i wanted 2 kill them all
  3. Hell yes! We already have troops over there......may as well just go to war with anyone between Iraq and here while it's convenient.

    I Bush
  4. That is plenty good enough reason for our leader too Cortz!
  5. lolz. There will be no war with Iran right now for a number of reasons. First off we do not have the resources to conduct a justifiable conventional war with them right now, there are just not enough combat ready troops. Also, there are still some intelligent people left in the government who are trying to make it demonstrably clear to the Bush administration that a war with Iran would be much, much different then a war with Iraq. the Iranian government and military would not fold upon an invasion like the Iraqis did, because of psychological, religious, and ideological reasons; our military would be faced with urban warfare situations that would dwarf what we are seeing in Iraq. However, there is certainly the possibility for some low intensity conflicts between our two countries, strategic bombings, etc. But there will most def. be no full blown conventional war in the near future.
  6. I'm not disagreeing with you, but they did say the exact same things before the first Gulf War, which was a total blow out.

    On a side note:

    A. Who will helping us. Israel obv, maybe the UK, but anyone else would just serve as a symbolic force.

    B. If we don't have enough troops, I dont know if we do or do not, Bush could have a draft.
    Thread Starter
  7. If we go to Iran, it was nice knowing all of you....I will almost 100% definitely be called back in to the Army, which they can do to me for the next 2 f'n years.

    But like the guy above said, we just don't have the resources right now, as much as I'm sure Bush would like to go in there.
     
  8. This is escalating but I doubt it comes to war before the end of the term.

    However, with the fast rise of a few prominant democratic leaders taking stands for the whitehouse it seems as though it could be a very good strategy for Iran if they were to attack right as the presidential race were coming to a close. It would most certainly disrupt our war efforts if we were at war during the change of the president.

    Also, with Iran claiming nuclear power and basically the right to use it, I would imagine that many more countries would support a war than was the case with Iraq.

    There will NOT be another draft.
  9. Iran is only nearing the verge of maybe having the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons.(and its not even clear if this is their intention) They most certainly do not have them yet, and are fairly far away from having any operational ones even when they do have the requisite technology to produce them, and LIGHT YEARS away from any that could touch the the united states. As far as Iran attacking around the presidential election cycle that really makes no sense, are you talking about in Iraq, attacks against the U.S, or what? Any of those scenarios are equally unlikely, Iran will not be attacking anyone soon, the issue is U.S. nuclear deterrence vs. Iran, and as people have already said in this thread actions on this front would not go past strategic bombings against nuclear facilities and things of that nature. Iran is a completely different sitution then Iraq, even if we had the capabilities to invade Iran, a conservative estimate on the US death toll to even just establish the level of control we have in Iraq right now would be 100k plus and that is very conservative, its just not happening.
  10. Bush definately had this at the back of his mind as he invaded Iraq. I think he wanted to get Iraq, so he could have Iran in between Iraq and Afghanistan. He prolly saw it as his way of ridding the world of evil, his legacy. I dont think he will turn back, because he has proven himself to be stubborn, and not go back on what he wants no matter what public opinion is.

    The only things that can stop him are:

    A. The Legislature not allowing him to declare war on Iran, but he can overide that with his executive powers, like in Grenada, Bay of Pigs, etc.

    B. Resources, but a draft could happen. (gg me)
    Thread Starter
  11. Honestly, isn't this the perfect time for Iran to pull some shit?

    American forces spread too thin for another war front at current deployment or enlistment levets

    American tolerance of war drained or non-existant

    World skeptical of any claims of American/British gov'ts

    World talking anything CIA, MI-5, or Mossad says with a bucket of salt

    World unwilling to intervene in Middle East (or at least seemingly so)

    It only makes sense for Iran to pull for as much as it can without guaranteeing an American or Isreali nuclear strike on Tehran. I am very worried right now.
  12. We could persuade others to join if Bush goes about the events leading up to war the right way, and Iran make an ass of themselves. But that is prolly not the way it will go down. I think you overstimate the power of Iran. History has shown that wars usually are less bloody then we are told they are going to be.
    Thread Starter
  13. I think attacking around a time like the presidential change makes perfect sense. However let me reiterate that I DO NOT think it will happen.

    Taking advantage of timing with the change in the white house could be very strategic. For example, there is little doubt that basic communications between the three branches of government are hindered a slight bit during the changes in the presidential office. Not only the president, but the chief advisors and cabinet members as well.

    I am by no way saying that changing the presidency causes some sort of political anarchy but it seems like anything which could be used as an advantage against the U.S. should be looked into.

    Also, starting a war or committing war-like situations right before the change forces the new president to make the tough decisions right away and basically show what type of presidency there will be. Will the next president be more focused on diplomacy or more focused with securing safety to the public through more forceful means.
  14. no and no to the last two posts. Just like bgx said as much as Bush might want to push into Iran its just not happening, we do not have the resources to do it without drastically reducing our collateral damage considerations to a level that would pretty much put us on par with the most terrible regimes in the history of the world. As far as Iran "pulling some shit", I guess this might seem logical, but they have never really had an offensive military posture aside from wanting to F up Israel and Iraq, and so there is no real danger for them doing anything to the united states proper, as far as their supplying arms and training to Iraqi insurgents that is already happening, so whats the difference.
  15. what would Iran do? If they attack Israel the world comes to the rescue. With Iran's future nuclear capabilities other nations are beginning to take notice, and actually feel that something should be done as opposed to when we invaded Iraq.
  16. Iran wont pull any shit. Pulling shit would be grounds for the world to attack Iran. Right now, they are ab;e to do what they want, without getting attacked, and they wont jeopardize that.
    Thread Starter
  17. You dont understand the psyche of Shia Muslims, any war in Iran would be horrific in the level of violence and loss of life on both sides, plz just look up Karbala Syndrome and you'll understand.
  18. That's what she said
  19. Personally I am <span>beyond</span> sick and tired of virtually every country in the Middle East and all of their fanatical, extremist bullshit taking the rest of the world hostage.

    I've been somewhat of a pacifist for the bulk of my adult life, but I'm to the point of basically saying f**k it. Having been to Egypt, Oman, Jordan, Israel, U.A.E and Bahrain... quite frankly I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep if we nuked the whole fucking region.

    There are over 6.5 billion people on this planet....I say get rid of about 1/2 of them. If Iran wants to get their asses bombed back to the stone age, and wants to continue thumbing their nose at the West...well I say lets throw down and give them a little taste of nuclear winter with radioactive snowflakes.
  20. Fuck yeah, genocide owns son.
  21. ...well I say lets throw down and give them a little taste of nuclear winter with radioactive snowflakes.

    ROFLMAO

Similar Threads