Will President Bush Invade Iran?

This is what bush should do than waste billions of dollars :-

Make Ali Sina the president of Iran .

I think that Bush should not invade because the game plan is not clear.
Bush needs to invest on apostates and liberals and ensure that they are ready to take care of the future of Iran and ensure that the Mahdi doomsday Sect is thoroughly discredited.
Bush should indulge in covert operations by anti-Ayotollah forces of freedom and liberal democracy.
Just invest in those anti mullah forces who can assasinate these ayotollahs and ensure that these ayotollahs are at war with each other.
After the conditions are appropriate it must install the liberal government who would then make a peace agreement with US to neutralize the nukes and the missiles.

Re: # 11

Nonsense, India is ready to fight to the finish in case Pakis have death wish and want to go to their Allah on an express train.

It doesnt matter air attack or ground attack it will bring tanker traffic to a halt in the persian gulf and may lead to strikes and sabotage in Iraq as well as Iran and oil going above 150/200 will bring not just OECD but china and India nto a recession as well all these booming stock markets will crash

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379

Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
John Zogby Videoclips Available here
John Zogby Audioclips Available here

Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

Gill what I read was that India refused the israeli offer because they feared retaliation from Pakistan where as Israel being far away was immune.

Freethinker, had Iraq not turned into a quagmire the way it did, Iran's getting hit would have been a certainty. Under the present scenario, however,...

Invading Iran - the probability is zero!

Air attacks - the probability is 75 percent.

As the old saying goes...Bhaagte bhoot ki, langotee hi sahi!

And if GWB does indeed conduct air attacks - ninety-nine percent of the "credit" for that would belong to that Ahmednijad guy who, with those "holocaust denial" masterpiece theatrics - proved himself to be in as "exclusive" a league as the late (and sometimes even lamented) Saddam used to occupy all by himself - and thus strengthened Bush's hands and perhaps also his resolve like no enemy of Iran could ever have done.

While open warfare between the U.S. and Iran seems very unlikely, another scenario might take place if the U.S backed off even from bombing the Iranian installations. Israel might bomb Iran at the instance of the U.S. Such a proposition had been discussed in the press. Israel recently bombed some targets in Syria and the U.S.'s silence was ear-shattering. But all of such measures seem very very dangerous. Israeli bombing might trigger an all-out war not only between Israel and Iran but with some other Arab countries in the region. It might eventually lead to nuclear strikes by Israel which would be totally disastrous for the world peace. Such an action by Israel in collusion with India against Kahuta in Pakistan was planned in 1983 but the U.S. didn't go for it. The CIA tipped General Zia about it and the planned strike was called off, according to the following report in today's Dawn.

Mohammad Gill
__________________________________________________________

‘Israel planned to hit Kahuta from India’s Jamnagar base’


NEW DELHI, Oct 28: India and Israel secretly planned to hit nuclear facility in Kahuta near Islamabad in 1983-84 but backed off when the CIA tipped off Pakistan’s then president Gen Ziaul Haq.

This was claimed in a report from London published in The Asian Age, citing details revealed by investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their book titled ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’.

The authors highlighted India’s intelligence links with Israel at the time when the two countries did not have any diplomatic contact.

“In February 1983, with the strike plan at an advanced stage, Indian military officials had travelled secretly to Israel, which had a common interest in eliminating (Dr A.Q.) Khan, to buy electronic warfare equipment to neutralise Kahuta’s air defences,” the book said.

India put its plans on hold after Dr Raja Ramanna, the then director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, was warned by the then Chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Munir Ahmed Khan in Vienna in the autumn of 1983 that Islamabad would attack Trombay if its facilities in Kahuta were hit.

At this juncture, the book said, Israel suggested that they would carry out the raid on Kahuta, using India’s Jamnagar base in Gujarat to launch its jets and use another base in northern India for refuelling the aircraft. “In March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation, bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration.”

However, the authors said India and Israel backed down after the CIA tipped off Gen Zia and the US state department warned India that “the US will be responsive if India persists.”

The book further said Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.

—APP

gill sahib,

... to answer yor question: i don't know if president bush will invade iraq or not, but i really think he should - and the sooner the better ........ remember the old saying, "a stitch in time saves nine " ...... the world could have avoided the carnage of ww-ii if the leaders at that time had the gonads to invade nazi germany ......... if bush acts like chamberlain ,future generations will never forgive him ..........

only a nincompoop will believe that Iran will NOT be attacked. It is a matter of when not if.
These neocons are happy to still the blood of others to the last drop...
BUT if the attack on Iran occurs apart from high oil prices [so what? a drop of innocent human blood is infinitely more precious than oil] it could lead to these following scenarios although for once masadi is actually making sense EXCEPT even a little strike like that might escalate...

Ravi_Kopra: #1

His e-mail address is as follows:

magill32@hotmail.com

Mohammad Gill

The crucial question is if the US invades Iran oil will hit 150$ and if Iran succeeds in shutting down Hormuz oil will go above 200$ this will send the US and the rest of the OECD economies into a recession

So bombing Iran requires a lot of balls

They'll try everything just short of complete invasion.

When Clinton was rocked with Lewinsky scandal he bombed Baghdad to divert the public attention. Now Bush can do everything short of invasion.

They don’t want another war.


Oh yes they'll support a war if it's clean..Aerial bombardment that looks good on CNN..like serbia..


My personal theory is that bush or hillary will bomb the republican guard saying they are terrorist groups and we're only attacaking terrorists..then the iranians will start the war.

"The Iraq mess was created because the administration had stubbornly refused to truly grasp the aftermath of the Iraq war..."

Oh, they had grasped it alright, Dick Cheney had known about the "aftermath" ever since Gulf War 1, so now they develop amnesia just to mislead ignoramuses like Mr. Gill. The war chaos, which the Americans encouraged when they rushed to Saddar City (Then Saddam City) to send the maurading masses from there with VIP passes to loot and spread mayhem in the city under the Americans blessings and watchful eyes. Chaos produced a lot of profits for the US elite and their peons and that is exactly what they wanted regardless of the human cost of the entire farce.

Now, regarding the "Iran" invasion, there will be no invasion, nada, zilch, NO INVASION- get this and understand this. What there will be will be a gradual escalation for the purpose of distraction and building up an enemy, for that purpose countries (like Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon etc) will be sacrificed. To get a grip on what the US plans for Iran go back to July of 2006 with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I had said it then and I maintain it now that that was a feeler for an Iran campaign, a prelude to test the waters so to speak, the second prelude came with an air strike on Syria recently, to guage the reaction and fallout. So, will the US try to further complicate its situation in Iraq, a war whose only unanticipated consequence was a very rapidly developing anti-war movement, which will prove to be quite irritating if the US were to invade Iran, so we will see American airstrikes under Israeli flags, a few missiles (third raters) from Iran landing in Israel, a few thousand killed in Iran a couple of dozen killed in Israel and then the status quo with the mullahs firmly incharge of Iran and the US further on its road to robbing its people and barbarically killing with deprivation the rest of the world....mark my words and watch your news channels....

Dear Dr. Gill, I have not yet read the article you posted, and please excuse me to be offbeat by letting you know I am an old friend of your elder brother Mo Gill who worked as an Engineer in a hospital in Michigan. Could you please let me have his email address. Please say hello to him for me. Thanks