Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
Monday, October 1, 2007
Can You Believe This?
It looks like a part of the Bush Administration is seriously considering "limited" bombing of Iran. If such strikes were to occur, what would the Iranian response be (directly and indirectly)? What then might happen?
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
well, it was an interesting article. however, a limitted bombing in Iran, would mean a complete defeat of the Iraq war. because, we already have two wars what we cannot confirm if we are losing or winning. A third war with Iran would be a huge mistake that Bush administration will never forget and go into the history books as the failed wars of Iraq, Iran and afganistanfor by the bush administration. The article indecates several atempts that bush administration tried to do like "hit and ran" bombing in Iran, but as the article suggested, such action will fuel the insurgency in Iraq.
By David Ouellette I think that we might have to attack because if we hold off and don't go on the offensive then Iran is going to attack U.S. So if we attack them there hopefully it might keep them at bay. If we don't strike them them Iran is going to strike first. I believe that no matter what we do we are going to go into a third war with Iran.
Mike G. It seems once again the Bush administration is on the war path. I just cannot see how we can invade another country, and not expect some sort of outrage from neighbooring countries. If Canada was invaded and a puppet government was set in place would not America act to protect itself from such a government. No i think once again we are reaching for the gun instead of attempting to understand a people and at least make an effort to avoid war.
This article was pretty interesting, but Bush talks about going into another country and attacking them as well, I think we should just finish off Iraq and not get ourselves deeper into military issues. If we keep fighting and our men and women are dying we wont have anyone else to go into military if we do decide to go and attack Iran. If bush decides to attack Iran, Like M. Mohamed said, it would go down into history that Bush likes fighting with everyone and we might eventually lose. If Bush proposes a war with Iran, that would make other countries look to United States and Bush, that we like to fight other countries. I personally think Bush should stay out of Iran and let their own people handle the issues and not get involved because we can't afford to.
I am not certain that I agree with a plan for war with Iran, but the "surgical strikes" may work in taking the power away from the Revolutionary Guards and also in sending a message to the Iranian government. If Iran thinks that the rest of the world is scared, that gives it strength. If it sees that France (the thought of the French government wanting to defend anyone - even itself - against anything shocks me), the US, and other countries are willing to take action, it may reconsider its position. I agree that we need to finish what we have started before taking on Iran, but the international community needs to show Iran that what it is doing isn't cool. If we show some backbone, Iran may back down.
Although the Iranians do not yet posses the weapons to retaliate on our home front in a traditional sense, an action of this magnitude will be very successful in recruiting thousands of young boys into the Al-Queda ranks. By bombing the innocents of these countries, we are just spreading anti-Americanism worldwide. We may not see a nuke headed out way until they develop their technology, but we very may well see continued terrorist attacks against our state, and the states of our allies. We cannot bomb the third world into loving us.
Tiffany Couture We have dug a hole for ourselves already in Iraq. I think if we go to war with Iran we will be too far over our heads. If we can avoid another war in any way we should. At LEAST until we get done the war in Iraq. If issues continue then maybe we could settle them a different way with Iran, but I don't think that war will be the answer.
Jen F. I think that this is really interesting. I have always wanted to learn more about the war. This information that is given has told me or answered quite a few of the questions that I have had. I still don’t understand if they find Osama bin laden will the war end or will we still be going at it. This piece of writing I enjoyed because it was interesting.
well i'm not surprised that it came down to this but i don't feel that it is in Americas best interest to follow through with such bombings. though the Iranians are enriching uranium that they claim is for energy purposes, there is naturally concern that Iran will use the materials for nuclear weapons due to their turbulent past. not to mention that they have been targeted for their support of the terrorists reign in the middle east. president bush is in the last two years of his administration and really has nothing to loose. he cant be re elected, his popular support is limited to that of his own party, and he is struggling to redeem himself for the mess he made in Iraq. the bombing of Iran would most likely result in yet another war in the middle east, increasing the debt that we are already in, but you can't be too sure. we will just have to wait and find out after the dust clears.
Scary! If we decide to have limited bombing in Iran, this decision could have catastrophic consequences. This could jeopardized the piece of the “oil pie” the United States receives from Iran. This would also display another account of American aggression.I can not see NATO agreeing with this thought. I am not a firm believer in the idea of “do first ask questions later.” I believe that the United States should come to some sort of consensus and have a solution to respond to the absolute mess in Iraq before even thinking about Iran. As I look back at history (Cuba and the Cold War), this form and idea of the United States policy, can be the only policy is what is going to lead us into WWIII. Period!
One thing that I am curious about is why we would want to start a new war with a new President coming into office in a little over a year, why would we throw on another new burden for the future President. I understand that we need to try to stay on the offensive and not get attacked, but if we do attack another country arent we going to spreading ourselves more thin than we already are?
Iran is a big country that has a popluation of about 68 million people, and has been in peace since their conflict with Iraq under the control of sadam in the late 1980's. It is in one of the worst battle zones, but has the world's most important resource, which is oil. I think that bombing Iran right now will be a big mistake, at least not before we end the Iraq war. Because if this happens, I believe Iran will respond in one way or another, and that will increase the two other areas in the reigion that are in war already. Gas prices will sky rocket, US soldiers including multi-national soldiers and other innocent civilians will be in danger, not to mention terrorism might become a real nightmare.So I think more negotiations with Iran about their nuclear processing would be better off and end the war in Iraq.
i am not sure what limited bombing really is? if you bomb you are at war? thats what i am to believe. is it really necessary? if we spread too thin our manpower and resources we may be at risk. maybe thats the idea? how do you justify killing many more? what will we gain? what if it is another big mistake? can we afford to tarnish credability? i just don't think its a good idea.
We were trying to solve aproblem and created another one let us solve the problems in Iraq and Afganistan Before we move to another one, Because all the world will be see us the dictator of the world as some Govornments has already said let us use the valuable force we have wisly Iran is next But let us settle iraq and Afganistan where we laready massed up with. By Sheikh noor Mohamed
By: Sally Songalewski Well it was an interesting article. But I have two different views. I feel that If we do not attack then they will come to the U.S. and attact us. Then I feel that all Bush wants is to finish his fathers duty. He is just on another war path. So either way we go, wether it may be not attacking first or attacking second the U.S. is in great danger. It is a hard question to conquer. Send more men to the line to fight for their country and have more men die, or sit back and wait for it all to happen. We just need to keep a high alert. Work everything out and have a plan before it is to late.
Sally said (in part) "...Send more men to the line to fight for their country and have more men die, or sit back and wait for it all to happen...."
Do you think war with Iran is inevitable? If so, why? There were many people in the United States that believed that a war with the Soviet Union was inevitable duirng the Cold War. But the war never happened.
well,I think this article is a part of the present issue about suspending of the Iran's Uranium enrichment. I believe bombing Iran requires a lot of consideration in many aspacts. First United States troops are in Afganistan and Iraq. You see what is going on in Iraq. There isn't way out until we realy clean our mass. Second attacking Iran may caused another diploamtic failed to the United State, besides US can't limit the attack it may takes longer than what US expecting.I believe combination of sanction and diplomatic negotiations can solve misunderstanding between the US and Iran rathan than confrontation in warfare.Also, I beleive bombing Iran can create more terrorisum in the region.Iran itself can retaliate the US in the Iraq and Afganistan.Iran, as we know,has 600,000 troops which are three times as large as Iraqi's former Republican Gards and has long range missles which can reach US military base in Qadar and it' allie Israel. we have to take one step at the time
well,I think this article is a part of the present issue about suspending of the Iran's Uranium enrichment. I believe bombing Iran requires a lot of consideration in many aspacts. First United States troops are in Afganistan and Iraq. You see what is going on in Iraq. There isn't way out until we realy clean our mass. Second attacking Iran may caused another diploamtic failed to the United State, besides US can't limit the attack it may takes longer than what US expecting.I believe combination of sanction and diplomatic negotiations can solve misunderstanding between the US and Iran rathan than confrontation in warfare.Also, I beleive bombing Iran can create more terrorisum in the region.Iran itself can retaliate the US in the Iraq and Afganistan.Iran, as we know,has 600,000 troops which are three times as large as Iraqi's former Republican Gards and has long range missles which can reach US military base in Qadar and it' allie Israel. we have to take one step at the time
MALCOLN X I think it almost imposible for the US to bomb Iran, because as we know Iran is more powerfull than any counries that the US invaded; US troopes are expecting to face half a million devoted Iranian troopes. Iran can retaliate US in everywhere. In Afganistan, Iraq, Qatar, and can even wipe Israel of the MAP; THEY HAVE LONG RANGE MISSELES.
I do not think war with Iran is inevitable. I think that a large scale ground invasion of Iran is very unlikely in the near future. They do not pose a threat at all to us now. They are several years off from getting nuclear power, nevermind nuclear weapons. A ground battle with Iran would be an mistake.
I believe that an attack on Iran, whether selective or full-scale, will prove detremental to American security, diplomatic, and economic standing. Through the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with a presence in numerous other countries, our military has been stretched to its limits. Strategically how can we possibly justify declaring war in yet another country? The Bush administartion seems to have its own agendas in Middle Eastern policy. The Bush/Cheney "shoot first, ask questions later" agenda has not succeeded so far, will it now somehow succeed in Iran? I say no. Attacks will only fuel anti-Americanism in the Middle East and around the world. An unprovoked attack cannot be justified by international law. We must refocus our entire strategy in the Middle East and empahsize diplomacy if we hope to have some glimmer of success. Like Harley said, "We cannot bomb the third world into loving us."
21 comments:
well, it was an interesting article. however, a limitted bombing in Iran, would mean a complete defeat of the Iraq war. because, we already have two wars what we cannot confirm if we are losing or winning. A third war with Iran would be a huge mistake that Bush administration will never forget and go into the history books as the failed wars of Iraq, Iran and afganistanfor by the bush administration. The article indecates several atempts that bush administration tried to do like "hit and ran" bombing in Iran, but as the article suggested, such action will fuel the insurgency in Iraq.
By David Ouellette
I think that we might have to attack because if we hold off and don't go on the offensive then Iran is going to attack U.S. So if we attack them there hopefully it might keep them at bay. If we don't strike them them Iran is going to strike first. I believe that no matter what we do we are going to go into a third war with Iran.
Mike G.
It seems once again the Bush administration is on the war path. I just cannot see how we can invade another country, and not expect some sort of outrage from neighbooring countries. If Canada was invaded and a puppet government was set in place would not America act to protect itself from such a government. No i think once again we are reaching for the gun instead of attempting to understand a people and at least make an effort to avoid war.
This article was pretty interesting, but Bush talks about going into another country and attacking them as well, I think we should just finish off Iraq and not get ourselves deeper into military issues. If we keep fighting and our men and women are dying we wont have anyone else to go into military if we do decide to go and attack Iran. If bush decides to attack Iran, Like M. Mohamed said, it would go down into history that Bush likes fighting with everyone and we might eventually lose. If Bush proposes a war with Iran, that would make other countries look to United States and Bush, that we like to fight other countries. I personally think Bush should stay out of Iran and let their own people handle the issues and not get involved because we can't afford to.
I am not certain that I agree with a plan for war with Iran, but the "surgical strikes" may work in taking the power away from the Revolutionary Guards and also in sending a message to the Iranian government. If Iran thinks that the rest of the world is scared, that gives it strength. If it sees that France (the thought of the French government wanting to defend anyone - even itself - against anything shocks me), the US, and other countries are willing to take action, it may reconsider its position. I agree that we need to finish what we have started before taking on Iran, but the international community needs to show Iran that what it is doing isn't cool. If we show some backbone, Iran may back down.
Although the Iranians do not yet posses the weapons to retaliate on our home front in a traditional sense, an action of this magnitude will be very successful in recruiting thousands of young boys into the Al-Queda ranks. By bombing the innocents of these countries, we are just spreading anti-Americanism worldwide. We may not see a nuke headed out way until they develop their technology, but we very may well see continued terrorist attacks against our state, and the states of our allies. We cannot bomb the third world into loving us.
Tiffany Couture
We have dug a hole for ourselves already in Iraq. I think if we go to war with Iran we will be too far over our heads. If we can avoid another war in any way we should. At LEAST until we get done the war in Iraq. If issues continue then maybe we could settle them a different way with Iran, but I don't think that war will be the answer.
Jen F.
I think that this is really interesting. I have always wanted to learn more about the war. This information that is given has told me or answered quite a few of the questions that I have had. I still don’t understand if they find Osama bin laden will the war end or will we still be going at it. This piece of writing I enjoyed because it was interesting.
well i'm not surprised that it came down to this but i don't feel that it is in Americas best interest to follow through with such bombings. though the Iranians are enriching uranium that they claim is for energy purposes, there is naturally concern that Iran will use the materials for nuclear weapons due to their turbulent past. not to mention that they have been targeted for their support of the terrorists reign in the middle east. president bush is in the last two years of his administration and really has nothing to loose. he cant be re elected, his popular support is limited to that of his own party, and he is struggling to redeem himself for the mess he made in Iraq. the bombing of Iran would most likely result in yet another war in the middle east, increasing the debt that we are already in, but you can't be too sure. we will just have to wait and find out after the dust clears.
Scary! If we decide to have limited bombing in Iran, this decision could have catastrophic consequences.
This could jeopardized the piece of the “oil pie” the United States receives from Iran. This would also display another account of American aggression.I can not see NATO agreeing with this thought. I am not a firm believer in the idea of “do first ask questions later.” I believe that the United States should come to some sort of consensus and have a solution to respond to the absolute mess in Iraq before even thinking about Iran. As I look back at history (Cuba and the Cold War), this form and idea of the United States policy, can be the only policy is what is going to lead us into WWIII. Period!
One thing that I am curious about is why we would want to start a new war with a new President coming into office in a little over a year, why would we throw on another new burden for the future President. I understand that we need to try to stay on the offensive and not get attacked, but if we do attack another country arent we going to spreading ourselves more thin than we already are?
Iran is a big country that has a popluation of about 68 million people, and has been in peace since their conflict with Iraq under the control of sadam in the late 1980's. It is in one of the worst battle zones, but has the world's most important resource, which is oil. I think that bombing Iran right now will be a big mistake, at least not before we end the Iraq war. Because if this happens, I believe Iran will respond in one way or another, and that will increase the two other areas in the reigion that are in war already. Gas prices will sky rocket, US soldiers including multi-national soldiers and other innocent civilians will be in danger, not to mention terrorism might become a real nightmare.So
I think more negotiations with Iran about their nuclear processing would be better off and end the war in Iraq.
By: Zak Mahamoud
i am not sure what limited bombing really is? if you bomb you are at war? thats what i am to believe. is it really necessary? if we spread too thin our manpower and resources we may be at risk. maybe thats the idea? how do you justify killing many more? what will we gain? what if it is another big mistake? can we afford to tarnish credability? i just don't think its a good idea.
We were trying to solve aproblem and created another one let us solve the problems in Iraq and Afganistan Before we move to another one,
Because all the world will be see us the dictator of the world as some Govornments has already said let us use the valuable force we have wisly Iran is next But let us settle iraq and Afganistan where we laready massed up with.
By Sheikh noor Mohamed
By: Sally Songalewski
Well it was an interesting article. But I have two different views. I feel that If we do not attack then they will come to the U.S. and attact us. Then I feel that all Bush wants is to finish his fathers duty. He is just on another war path. So either way we go, wether it may be not attacking first or attacking second the U.S. is in great danger. It is a hard question to conquer. Send more men to the line to fight for their country and have more men die, or sit back and wait for it all to happen. We just need to keep a high alert. Work everything out and have a plan before it is to late.
Sally said (in part) "...Send more men to the line to fight for their country and have more men die, or sit back and wait for it all to happen...."
Do you think war with Iran is inevitable? If so, why? There were many people in the United States that believed that a war with the Soviet Union was inevitable duirng the Cold War. But the war never happened.
well,I think this article is a part of the present issue about suspending of the Iran's Uranium enrichment. I believe bombing Iran requires a lot of consideration in many aspacts. First United States troops are in Afganistan and Iraq. You see what is going on in Iraq. There isn't way out until we realy clean our mass. Second attacking Iran may caused another diploamtic failed to the United State, besides US can't limit the attack it may takes longer than what US expecting.I believe combination of sanction and diplomatic negotiations can solve misunderstanding between the US and Iran rathan than confrontation in warfare.Also, I beleive bombing Iran can create more terrorisum in the region.Iran itself can retaliate the US in the Iraq and Afganistan.Iran, as we know,has 600,000 troops which are three times as large as Iraqi's former Republican Gards and has long range missles which can reach US military base in Qadar and it' allie Israel.
we have to take one step at the time
By:Roda Noor
well,I think this article is a part of the present issue about suspending of the Iran's Uranium enrichment. I believe bombing Iran requires a lot of consideration in many aspacts. First United States troops are in Afganistan and Iraq. You see what is going on in Iraq. There isn't way out until we realy clean our mass. Second attacking Iran may caused another diploamtic failed to the United State, besides US can't limit the attack it may takes longer than what US expecting.I believe combination of sanction and diplomatic negotiations can solve misunderstanding between the US and Iran rathan than confrontation in warfare.Also, I beleive bombing Iran can create more terrorisum in the region.Iran itself can retaliate the US in the Iraq and Afganistan.Iran, as we know,has 600,000 troops which are three times as large as Iraqi's former Republican Gards and has long range missles which can reach US military base in Qadar and it' allie Israel.
we have to take one step at the time
MALCOLN X
I think it almost imposible for the US to bomb Iran, because as we know Iran is more powerfull than any counries that the US invaded; US troopes are expecting to face half a million devoted Iranian troopes. Iran can retaliate US in everywhere. In Afganistan, Iraq, Qatar, and can even wipe Israel of the MAP; THEY HAVE LONG RANGE MISSELES.
I do not think war with Iran is inevitable. I think that a large scale ground invasion of Iran is very unlikely in the near future. They do not pose a threat at all to us now. They are several years off from getting nuclear power, nevermind nuclear weapons. A ground battle with Iran would be an mistake.
Dave Schreiber
I believe that an attack on Iran, whether selective or full-scale, will prove detremental to American security, diplomatic, and economic standing. Through the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with a presence in numerous other countries, our military has been stretched to its limits. Strategically how can we possibly justify declaring war in yet another country? The Bush administartion seems to have its own agendas in Middle Eastern policy. The Bush/Cheney "shoot first, ask questions later" agenda has not succeeded so far, will it now somehow succeed in Iran? I say no. Attacks will only fuel anti-Americanism in the Middle East and around the world. An unprovoked attack cannot be justified by international law. We must refocus our entire strategy in the Middle East and empahsize diplomacy if we hope to have some glimmer of success. Like Harley said, "We cannot bomb the third world into loving us."
Post a Comment