Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Attack Iran
There is a hot question casually popping into international affairs, could the US attack Iran? Barack Obama, John McCain, and popular media give a definite yes, so long as, they possess weapons of mass destruction or pose an imminent threat to national security. Sound familiar? The notion of an all out attack on Iran is being paraded in front of Americans, just like the months before Iraqi Freedom. Yet, this wasn't even an issue during the recent elections because all major candidates agree that an attack on Iran is a possibility. President Ahmadinijad of Iran is demonized just like Saddam. Iran is being accused, without validity, of supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. The stage is being set for a war that would dwarf Vietnam and Iraq combined. Iran has ten times the population of Iraq and an army to match. I don't think anyone wants war, yet, our politicians are plunging headfirst into another. After suffering virtually zero repercussions from invading Iraq, despite outright lies and never finding nuclear weapons, our leaders made one thing clear: they have every right to invade Iran. It's a frightening thought for myself but this is on the news constantly. Hopefully, I'm wrong and this is all a paranoid delusion. However, mark my words, this presidency will lead a full out attack on Iran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Auzy’s article has a strong title, Attack Iran, which is titillating and persuades to read on. He writes about the actual possibility of attacking Iran and the tone important politicians have taken for some time. He affirms Obama “will lead a full out attack on Iraq” and “our politicians are plunging headfirst.” Some credit does need to be given to Obama for repeating many times that his first option is to try diplomacy unilaterally and jointly with other nations. My view is the reason why nothing very serious has occurred with Iran is because politicians in Washington realize that the threat is being exaggerated by this administration. Most of the public seems more aware of dissenting views from policy experts, which the media is utilizing this time around.
Auzy did not apply any culpability to President Ahmadinejad’s conduct on the world stage the last few years and his popularity problems in his own county. There is evidence that Iran has supported Hezbollah and also Hamas even before they took power of Palestine. Those who support a war with Iran do demonize Ahmadinejad; Obama to his credit has refrained from that kind of war mongering. Auzy brings up good points about the conduct of the current administration and its supporters in regards to pushing for confrontation with Iran. To match the title better the article could have focused on details about Cheney’s failed attempts to incite war with Iran as recently as this year. Additionally, the efforts of the neocons in the Pentagon who want to continue the same foreign policy ideology that has been in place for the last eight years.
Following the invasion of U.S on Iraq accusing them of having weapon of mass destruction has created a lot of enormity .Now another attack on another country will be worse and requires more thought since the consequences might be greater. Now the question is whether the plan to attack Iran is going to pull through. Auzy’s post on 'Attack Iraq' claims that he believes the president–elect Barrack Obama is going to attack Iran. He says that Barrack Obama, John McCain, and popular media give a definite yes, ‘so long as, they possess weapons of mass destruction or pose an imminent threat to national security.’ Attack on Iran has been long planned. The problem is the U.S have no valid prove of this and should not accuse Iran of supporting terrorist activities without validity or this might end up like the case of Iraq. I agree with Auzy on this, and it could be just a staged plan to start a war and that Obama will only attack when the nations security is threatened
At the outset of Bush's second term, around 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney had something to say. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the enemies of America, and that Israel would, "be doing the bombing for us." This is without the US military involvement and putting no pressure on them to do it. I ran had issued a threat on Israel and this is why Israel is ready to defend itself first .The USA are using this as a way to involve themselves without having to be blamed on whatever the outcome will be. On The other hand the US has stated that they are ready if the Iran truly proves to be a threat to the US and the world at large if they posses nuclear weapon. It is therefore a duty for our leader to be concerned with the safety of its citizens. U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a ‘nuclear umbrella’ against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, as said earlier this week.
This US guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as the U.S. believing that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms. We cannot be sure but we should not be quick to think the US is ready to jump into another war. It is only trying to protect its people. We should also be careful that they do not make the sane mistakes the Bush administration made. I believe the Obama Administration will think things through and whatever decision they may decide will be a smart move.
Post a Comment