Another war or just WWIII???

[Koma1]

We are lucky to have such a great leader with a long family background in politics to lead us through these trying times. The president has faith in God and I have faith in both of them. God bless America.

[Hardball]

I got the email--I'll read it after I read Boars sword info. Thanks.

[BoarSpear]

I got the email--I'll read it after I read Boars sword info. Thanks.

it isnt all sword it works into boxing, wrestling and pressure point use in WESTERN arts

[wiccan12]

i for one hope they blow up everyone withing range and the world falls apart trying to fight back. anarchy is the only way for people to really do what they want without government getting in the way anyways.

[Tom Yum]

2. What do you think are the main political factors in stopping them?...

The risk of war itself. Opposition from trade partners (China, Russia). Opposition from Europe, allbeit unlikely. Chenges in political leadership in their country.

3. Are they more or less dangerous than other countries with nuclear weapons?

How would you compare? By current nuclear powers in the region? Changes in political regime? Our history with them?

4. Should they, as Syria claims, be allowed the rights to develop nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes" even though they are led by a man who wants to wipe out countries and races??

No. How about solar energy? The potential would be huge...

Do you think al-Qaeda will step things up so that they don't fall off the radar? Will that feed Iran's desire to do more? Will Iran continue to try to play Europe against the US, or will they use more al-Qaeda like tactics and try to divide the US itself?

Yes. Al-Qaeda will probably attempt an attack on us via a suicide bomber from a non-middleastern convert ala the American Taliban or the likes of a Padilla. A damn good reason why the patriot act would protect our freedom - to live.

If we commit greater resources to a war overseas, Al-Qaeda will do all they can to mess with us at home.

Iran will certainly use any leverage they can in Europe. The composition of western Europe is alot different than most American's think and this can make alot of political capital.

I'm not saying I dislike Europeans or Iranis, because there are great people in every culture, but if we have to protect ourselves and the stability of an important region we should assume the worst and hope for the best.

[BoarSpear]

Are you being serious?

Come on. This is Jubaji, isn't it....

i dunno sounds more like mattbl to me

[BoarSpear]

Okay. I've been getting all kinds of info on Iran in the last few days. My normal State Department e-mail updates have nearly all been about Iran, and it seems like all of the focus in the news is in Tehran. Since the thread is really about whether or not Iran will be the beginning of World War Three, I have some relevant questions for your consideration:

1. Based on the technology, resources, and politics at work in the situation, how long before Iran actually gets the bomb?

well since we dont glow in the dark yet, they dont have them yet.

I would say they are racing towards them and building up their ability to stop attacks on their facilities at the same time...iran has already put several satellites in space to watch for signs of attack... barring outside intervention 3 months to 3 years is a reasonable estimate...

2. What do you think are the main political factors in stopping them?

None...if you start WW3 you wont need trading partners...these idiots see it as a religious duty to exterminate us...that means killing them just sends them to a happy god in their eyes...think kamikaze's with nukes

3. Are they more or less dangerous than other countries with nuclear weapons?

nothing is more dangerous than a religious nut who believes he has gods voice in his ear....Mutual assured destruction contains men who value life and property...however it fits right into the plans of the loony trying to win a holy war.

4. Should they, as Syria claims, be allowed the rights to develop nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes" even though they are led by a man who wants to wipe out countries and races?

no no and hell no

5. Finally, what role do you think the "competition" with al-Qaeda to be seen as the last bastion of Islam (radical Islam that is...swimmin' pools, suicide bombs, movies of the week...) will play in how both Iran and al-Qaeda operate in the next few years?

I see them teaming up on their common enemy...US.

Do you think al-Qaeda will step things up so that they don't fall off the radar? Will that feed Iran's desire to do more? Will Iran continue to try to play Europe against the US, or will they use more al-Qaeda like tactics and try to divide the US itself?

I think things are on simmer at the moment, that means soon the cook will be finished in the kitchen...then we will see whats for dinner...he's a funny guy, he like to import things from around the world to spice things up, its always a surprise what he comes up with.

United we stand, divided we fall, is it starting to make sense yet?

[BoarSpear]

Besides, I think he likes you..

............ and while im on the subject and before i forget...

[GonzoStyles]

Iran, is it a threat or more hype? Syria is "Evil" and part of the problem in the region supposedly, even though we send suspects there to be tortured.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml

the democratic student movement in Iran is well known outside of US media
which fails to give it even minimal attention.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/

and IMO the youth of Iran are very modern and do not see the future of Iran as a backwards theocracy. Will they be able to assert an influence soon enough? Lets hope so......

meanwhile we tap the head of the IAEA's cell phone and try to get him taken out as head of the organization and btw he is Iranian and possibly our best link to negotiate, but hey you cant stir up hype by trying to resolve an issue diplomatically.

[Hardball]

Harvey: Army could fight another war if asked

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


Despite being fully committed in Iraq and elsewhere, the Army secretary said today the service is ready to fight another war whenever President Bush orders it.
Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey told reporters gathered at the Pentagon that even though the Army has about 18 brigades deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it can “surge another 18 brigades” for contingency operations in hot spots such as Iran if necessary.

Harvey called for the impromptu press briefing in response to what he described as recent criticisms that the Army is “severely stretched.”

“A few have even described it as ‘broken.’ I believe these comments are incorrect,” Harvey said in a prepared opening statement. “To be sure, the Army is facing great challenges, but … the U.S. Army is, without question, the preeminent land power in the world.”

This high state of readiness is possible, Harvey said, through the Army Force Generation Model, which allows the service to keep a portion of its active force refitting from a deployment, while a portion is training and a portion is deploying over a three year period.

But when questioned on how well the Army is keeping to that model, Harvey said “We are not exactly at a one and two” ratio. “We are migrating. … We still think we can surge with 15 to 20 brigades,” he said.

Other issues Harvey discussed at the briefing included:

• A $20 billion spending plan to make sure the National Guard’s combat brigades are equipped in the same way as the active force’s combat brigades over the next six years.

• Changes to the restructuring of the National Guard. The Guard will still have 106 brigades as planned, Harvey said. But because of the Guard’s unique mission of deploying combat forces and homeland security, senior leaders have decided to reduce its total number of combat brigades from 34 to 28 and increase its number of support brigades from 72 to 78, Harvey said.

• The proposed budget for the Army, which the president is scheduled to send to Congress in early February. Harvey would not provide specific details in the president’s proposed budget, but said, “There will be no cuts in the Army or the DoD budget. We, in the Army, are pleased with the proposed budget.”

Back to top