The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 09 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">De Villepin for president

i've read something in the Times about him ... why do they put down one of the only french politician/diplomat i like ? <span id='postcolor'>

We put down every French diplomat and politician.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 09 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">De Villepin for president

i've read something in the Times about him ... why do they put down one of the only french politician/diplomat i like ? <span id='postcolor'>

We put down every French diplomat and politician. <span id='postcolor'>

heh , i havedn't heard anything bad about Jacques ChevÄnement , Alliot Marie , Sarkozy and such

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

It is easy for the French having carefully maneuvered themselves to make such a speech, it is easy for them to suggest months more of inspections with three week reports when they do not have tens of thousands of troops deployed on Iraqs borders, when they were totally insignificant in the military build up that De Villepin acknowledges in his speech as 'lending support' to 'our collective resolve'. And certainly people should consider the motives of France, Russia and others as carefully as they consider those of the US.

I for one have not been greatly impressed by the French position. In fact i have been more impressed by Germany with Fischer raising his impassioned squeaky voice at Rumsfeld. Heheh

It is clear to me that America drew a line in the sand quite a while ago that Saddam did not get on the right side of quickly enough and now they have determined to go in.

I think it would be ideal in some respects if at this point with Iraq showing signs of major (but not full) cooperation the US and UK militaries could pull out claiming to have shocked Iraq into action and claiming to have vindicated their resolve to follow up on threats made by the international community if necessary. I think many Iraqi people with hopes for change would have those hopes dashed in such a case.

But i also think most people are agreed that the US being the US and Saddam Hussein being Saddam Hussein then 'the alliance' is likely as hell to go in.

The French do not impress me with their passionate defense of peace. De Villepin is a smooth operator but it is the French up to their old tricks. If the US was opposed to action and the French standed to gain then i can easily imagine De Villepin making the opposite argument in defense of 'liberte egalite fraternite' for the Iraqi people

but of course the French would not have the gaul to go it alone on Iraq. Oh dear, bad joke.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">heh , i havedn't heard anything bad about Jacques ChevÄnement , Alliot Marie , Sarkozy and such <span id='postcolor'>

Their shows on comedy central are in the final stages.

[Jinef 2]

Saddam i think had no chance on getting on the 'right' side of the line in the sand. Bush is obsessed with getting himself a nice chunk of real estate with a view of the persian gulf.

FSPilot - you are indeed quite a contoversial character. In your posts you keep contradicting yourself and undermining your own points only to bluntly come out with 'god bless america' if anyone challenges you.

Let's do a scenario shall we. Some how america is blocked from going into Iraq, i don't know how that could be achieved but let's say hyperthetically that it is the case. Iraq is left alone from military action and the UN weapon inspectors stay for years looking due to pressure from the USA but find no WMD, would you believe then that Iraq is not a signifigant threat to the US? Or would 260 million people sit under the bed with NBC suits on?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 09 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot - you are indeed quite a contoversial character. In your posts you keep contradicting yourself and undermining your own points only to bluntly come out with 'god bless america' if anyone challenges you. <span id='postcolor'>

Do you always make wild statements without backing it up any?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's do a scenario shall we. Some how america is blocked from going into Iraq, i don't know how that could be achieved but let's say hyperthetically that it is the case. Iraq is left alone from military action and the UN weapon inspectors stay for years looking due to pressure from the USA but find no WMD, would you believe then that Iraq is not a signifigant threat to the US? Or would 260 million people sit under the bed with NBC suits on?<span id='postcolor'>

IF Saddam is cooperating fully, completely, and without hesitation, IF every last ounce of his weapons has been brought out and destroyed, or accounted for being destroyed, IF weapons inspectors are given free access to the entire country, scientists, political and military leaders, and any and every document that Iraq has without any sort of resistance. Then and only then will I think Iraq is no longer a threat to my country.

Hyperthetically speaking that is.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hyperthetically<span id='postcolor'>

That's hypothetically

[Jinef 2]

Oh well i've forgotten how to spell. Yes i do make wild statements without backing them up, but only if i feel the evidence is blatant. Scroll back to your argument about civillians and how they die when targeted in the infrastructure of a country. I was watching closely and i agree mainly with Denoir (how the hell do you pronounce that anyway! )

[Frisbee 0]

In a manner of speaking,you could say they're just waiting for the iraqi's to destroy their last ak47 to march in saying 'they're evil anyway'.

person A : 'NK has WMD's(which they could supply to AQ or any of those terrorists),NK is also a dictatorship (a slightly more ruthless one at that I think),NK has threatened SK and had a few skirmishes,why don't you attack THEM?'

person B : 'They're not the war-mongering country you make them out to be'

*sighs*  

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Mar. 09 2003,08:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(how the hell do you pronounce that anyway! )<span id='postcolor'>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothetically

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a manner of speaking,you could say they're just waiting for the iraqi's to destroy their last ak47 to march in saying 'they're evil anyway'. <span id='postcolor'>

An AK47 is not a weapon of mass destruction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">person A : 'NK has WMD's(which they could supply to AQ or any of those terrorists),NK is also a dictatorship (a slightly more ruthless one at that I think),NK has threatened SK and had a few skirmishes,why don't you attack THEM?'

person B : 'They're not the war-mongering country you make them out to be'<span id='postcolor'>

*sigh*

if only we could control each others arguments

person B: We're using diplomacy first, like we always do. We're not the war-mongering country you make us out to be.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 09 2003,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An AK47 is not a weapon of mass destruction.<span id='postcolor'>

o im sure bush will find a way to make it one.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 09 2003,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">person B: We're using diplomacy first, like we always do.  We're not the war-mongering country you make us out to be.<span id='postcolor'>

Not this group around Pres. Bush! It`s a diplomatic masterpiece to come up with formulations like "the axis of evil" and "the old europe", veeeeery diplomatic indeed. What do you expect from a man who calls Greeks Grecians anyway. He should know stuff like that and his advisors should know it too!

The US diplomacy under Bush is:

1. I`m always right.

2. Others don`t know what they`re talking about.

3. I`m superior. I don`t have to follow rules.

4. I piss off a lot former friends and allies with my actions and statements.

5. We attack the Iraq no matter what all world comes up with against it.

[The Ferret 0]

I've just finished watching a program on the History Channel call "Beyond the Gulf War". The program went into detail about Iraq's weapons programs, from the purchasing of a Calufuge to enrich plutonium to interviews with Iraqi scientists who have defected. It showed films of the original UN inspectors having their vehicles stopped and documents they had taken from weapon sites, forceably removed by the Iraqi military, also it showed them not being allowed to leave various sites with certain documents or pieces of equipment they had taken for analysis. It documented the threats they received and them ultimately being kicked out of Iraq.

Just days AFTER having kicked out the UN inspectors the US conducted airstrikes for several days. One of those strikes damaged a building which revealed to spy satellites, four drones designed for delivering chemical warheads, drones that had not been discovered by 8 years of UN inspections.

Some days ago, I asked 11 questions, most of which were ignored. That's fine, I work alot and am not a serious or frequent poster on this board. However, one of the individual's, who did post a response, said that my contention that Saddam is actively trying to build WMD's was "pure supposition". If the stupid History Channel can produce a two hour show which endlessly documents Iraq's weapons program, how can anyone honestly hold to the position that Iraq doesn't have WMD, and Saddam has had a change of heart? Does anyone believe that Saddam Hussein did not spend the years between 1998 and 2002, when there were no UN inspectors, going to great lengths developing methods to hide his programs from future inspectors? I mean hell, he was doing that when they were there!

All over Iraq, Saddam has himself depicted in paintings as Saladin, the historical, warrior, savior of the Arab world. You honestly don't believe he would try to strike a massive blow against Israel given half the chance? If he did strike a nuclear blow against Israel. How do you think most of the Arab world would react to that? Does comparing him to Hitler still seem that laughable? By the way, despite Iraq not being an industrialized country, Saddam Hussein did in fact have the fourth largest military in the world prior to the first Gulf War. If not a Hitler on the global scale, he was and can be again well on way to being one in the Mid-east. Which supplies most of the world's fuel.

In a recent post it was said "Bush hasn't given Saddam a chance to get on the right side of the line in the sand."

He's had 4 months to open up. Saddam says "Golly, my scientiests just don't wanna talk to the inspectors, Can't force 'em you know, I'm just a dictator responsible for the torture and death of tens of thousands, but I can't influence my scientists to talk with you." He says it, and half of you believe it. Blix has said over and over that Iraq still has not made the decision to fully cooperate. How long does it take for a man to decide to stop playing games? How much cooperation do you think we'd get if Bush had been any less hard lined then he has been?

I read these posts, and I'm absolutely amazed. No matter what America is the bad guy.

As far as Bush wanting real estate:

1. We don't want it. American's are not imperialistic in nature. You looking for imperalism, look at European history, not American.

2. At this point Bush, and unless this turns out PERFECTLY, he has lost his chances at re-election, and he knows it. This isn't the act of a politician, this is a man who right or wrong is fighting with a conviction.

3.  Name a country we've ever fought and kept. We left Iraq the first time. I fought in Panama not much more than a decade ago, and last I heard we don't even have troops there anymore. Grenada...nope. Skip Vietnam (eh). Korea...we are the only reason there is a South Korea. Germany...yes we all know what a puppet of the US they have been, and to think, it just as easily could have been "Western Russia" or maybe "Stalinland". Japan? Sneak attack us, and 60 years later both my cars and my TV are made there. Spain? Mexico? Name one! Sometimes inept, sometimes naive, usually imperfectly...we have always been kind, tried to be fair, and tried to make it a better place, leaving it in the hands of the people who live there.

4. Lastly, if you really believe that all we want is cheap oil, think about it....We strike a deal with good ol' trustworthy, peace-loving Saddam. We ask the UN to lift the sanactions, I bet France wouldn't even whimper over that request. We get oil for $5 a pop. Saddam goes on being....Saddam, and everyone's happy and blissfully stupid. That would be much cheaper than the money we will be pumping into the war, the rebuilding, the proping up and support of a new Iraqi government, not to mention the lives to be saved.

[DarkLight 0]

Why is it that the US claims to know more than the inspectors? If the inspectors say that it will take months to inspect Iraq then we should wait for months!

We don't even get the chance to inspect the whole country...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 09 2003,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the stupid History Channel can produce a two hour show which endlessly documents Iraq's weapons program, how can anyone honestly hold to the position that Iraq doesn't have WMD, and Saddam has had a change of heart?<span id='postcolor'>

Anyone who categorically claims that Iraq does not have WMDs is as weakminded as anyone who categorically claims they do have WMDs.  A 2-hour History Channel program does not make anyone more qualified to make such determinations than UNMOVIC.

The choice is between attacking now or attacking later if inspections fail, right?  (...assuming there wouldn't be any attack if UNMOVIC ever reported the complete disarmament of Iraq.)  So, what's your rush?  What threat does Iraq pose while inspections continue?

I think it's great that the US/UK are keeping up the pressure.  If someone didn't slowly wave such a big stick over Saddam Hussein's head Iraq would not be disarming and then there really would be a need to invade.  Such a credible threat of force may ultimately save many civilian and military lives.  The world has nobody to thank except the US/UK for every inch of Iraqi disarmament achieved so far.  You can be very proud of this.  However, you could easily go down in history as great villains instead of great heroes by launching an invasion before it's absolutely necessary.

[Necromancer- 0]

Of course the French kind of support Iraq.

France helped Saddam building the infrastructure in the 70's.

I dont know exactly in exchange for what... but I bet its in exchange for oil.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bernadotte- in many ways i agree that the boldest and most impressive gesture now would be for the US and UK to hold off from attacking Iraq.

But what if the Iraqis continued to cooperate for six months (for example) ,the vast majority of US/ UK troops had been pulled out , and then Saddam suddenly started being evasive again and acted like he was trying to acquire new weapons?

Its a 'what if' but not so impossible. Would the UN as a whole really have the resolve to share the burden of a military build up, or would the US/ UK have to spend billions more building up their forces only for Saddam to give major but not total concessions and again divide the UN- to stave off any use of force?

Would the troops again be withdrawn?

The UK for one would find in hard to keep financing endless military buildups and it wouldnt exactly be popular in the US either.

As i said a line has been drawn in the sand and now the US is committed (or feels so) .It is hard to deny that there is a momentum to these events. Even those who object to war feel strongly that there is likely to be one.

Still i agree that it would be impressive in many respects for the US and UK to hold off from attacking.

--------------------------------------------

I would like to address another issue that has gone mostly undiscussed here (surprisingly so). Assuming that most people agree that regardless of their views a war is now likely(if not quite certain), how do they think such a war will be conducted and how do they think the war will go for the various sides?

Most people seem sure that the 'allies' will 'win'(in some definition of the word) but over what period of time, how easily will cities like Baghdad really fall? It seems to me there is potential for protracted urban conflicts.

How easily will Saddam Hussein fall into captivity? Will any WMDs if they exist be used and against who?

Will the Kurds and Shias attack Saddams forces, will the Shias welcome the Americans and British or fight against them? Will Saddam launch some kind of attack against the kurdish population or against Israel?

Will Saddam again set oil reservoirs on fire (as i have seen reported)?

Will the Turkish enter northern Iraq and how will the Kurds react if it happens?

The regular Iraqi army is widely agreed to have weak cohesion, but what about the republican guard? the various secret police organisations and urban militias? Will they stand and for how long?

Lots of speculation is needed to answer but if lots answer someone is bound to get it right...

i may post some links soon to help inform peoples opinions

[Jinef 2]

I have to hand it to Ferret, he made a lot of really good points and seems to have a better grasp of whats happening than FSPilot will ever have.

I am now just waiting to either go on a job or listen to the radio about us invading Iraq and hear my friend's names being listed. I do sincerely believe that this whole war will turn out to be unjustified and that if we lose people Tony Blair is going down the shitter head first and hopefully the twat that instigated this whole escapade in the first place (no not Hussein)! If however the war is justified the Americans on this forum are going to have a field day and then all casualties are just part of the job as Denoir has previously talked about.

So now i'm waiting, i will still monitor this thread if i get time and make a few contributions but that's me done really.

Bernadotte - you seem like a sane character and have lot's of good ideas, don't waste them on some of the people in this forum!

*realises his pie is ready*

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Will the Turkish enter northern Iraq and how will the Kurds react if it happens?<span id='postcolor'>

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of Turkey’s ruling AKP (and who may well be Turkey’s prime minister within ten days) is already acting like a Turkish prime minister. Erdogan warned Iraq’s Kurd factions not to “test Turkey’s sensitivities.†Translation: don’t think about starting a separate Kurd state. Some commentators see this fellow as a “peace candidate.†The Kurds know better. On March 5, General Hilmi Ozkok, the Turkish military’s chief of staff, also warned Iraqi Kurds. In his statement Ozkok told the Iraqi Kurdish factions that Turkey would defend its “national interests.â€

This is the way the invasion is planned and already done:

With some 250,000 troops massed in the Persian Gulf, the invasion of Iraq is imminent. U.S. Army Special Forces and commandos from allied nations have already gone into Iraq to spot targets and work with Iraqi allies. Satellite and aircraft reconnaissance have spotted more targets and the war will open with thousands of smart bombs hitting targets within 24 hours. Ground forces will probably start advancing immediately. Most of the Iraqi army is expected to surrender quickly. Special Forces and psychological warfare troops will contact Iraqi army units to arrange surrenders, providing smart bomb attacks on reluctant units as needed.

Without mechanized units in Turkey, most land operations will have to come from Kuwait. This means that the British, who have the weakest logistics support, will be assigned to take Basra. This will happen within days (possibly one day) of the start of the war. The capture of this city, which is the "capital" of Shia Iraq (the Arab Shia Moslems comprise 60 percent of the country's population and really, really hate Saddam and his gang) will be instantly broadcast to the rest of Iraq (using Commando Solo flying radio transmitters, and other transmitters on the ground). The site of cheering Iraqis greeting their liberators will have a noticeable psychological impact in and out of Iraq.

The U.S. Marines, with over a division of troops in Kuwait, and a lot of amphibious equipment, will use that stuff to go up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers towards Baghdad. This area is where most Iraqis live. Marine patrols have already been seen crossing the Kuwaiti border into Iraq.

U.S. Army mechanized and air mobile units can move to the left, through the desert. The tanks can move up to 200 kilometers a day. That means Baghdad is at least three days from Kuwait if there is no opposition. Moving to the west, through the desert, and the ground movement takes over a week. Moving light forces by helicopter and heavier transports (especially C-130s) and you can be on the ground anywhere in Iraq within hours. This is likely to happen, especially with Special Forces backed by warplanes equipped with smart bombs overhead.

The Department of Defense is calling all this "Shock and Awe," but it's the same "lightning war" (Blitzkrieg) used by the Germans sixty years ago. Actually, this concept of rapid, hard hitting operations is ancient. The battle will be fought over an area where the ancient Assyrians practiced "lightning war" 3400 years ago, using fast moving chariots and high tech iron weapons to "shock and awe" their opponents into quickly surrendering (or getting chopped up in particularly gruesome ways, which can still be seen on stone carvings in the area.).

The Sunni Arabs, about 20 percent of the population, know that the majority Shia and Kurds hate them for centuries of oppression. So many of these Sunnis may resist. Not a lot, but enough to make for some real battles. But the Republican Guard and secret police units can only muster perhaps 300,000 troops and not all of those are eager to die for Saddam. This fight will be more a matter of psychological warfare. Demonstrate to the Sunni diehards that they will be protected if they surrender, but will surely die if they resist, and there won't be many battles.

It could be over in a week, at least the heavy fighting. Iraq is full of cranky and well armed people, so there will be some unrest for weeks.

I don´t know what the loss of the turkey front to US and Brits forces will mean but the effect is more important than Rumsfeld claims.

Preparations for airdrop behind enemy lines

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course the French kind of support Iraq.

France helped Saddam building the infrastructure in the 70's.

I dont know exactly in exchange for what... but I bet its in exchange for oil.

<span id='postcolor'>

Bla bla bla, same with the US.

What will Iran do whilst an invasion on iraq ?

This will give you a hint:

Iranian Islamic radicals, who support Iraqi Shia rebel organizations with bases in Iran, have urged these Shias to oppose any American military government in the wake of an invasion. The Iranian Islamic radicals would like to establish a Shia dominated Islamic government in Iraq. This is unlikely, but it is possible for their to be a Shia dominated government (Shia are 60 percent of Iraq's population) and the Iranian Islamic radicals want a major say in how things are run. Unfortunately, many Iraqi Shias do not trust Iranian motives, particularly those of Iranian Islamic radicals. This means there will be tension, and likely violence, between pro and anti Iran Shia factions within Iraq.

and finally something to worry about for the US´s most doubtable ally in the war on terror, Pakistan:

India and Iran will hold joint naval exercises, with five Iranian ships arriving in the Indian port of Bombay over the weekend. India has always considered itself the regional superpower, and has tried to link that power with active diplomacy with all its neighbors. This isolates India's major enemy; Pakistan. The links between the Iranian and Indian navy comes at the expense of the Iranian religious militants, who see India as an enemy of Islam because of the long standing disputes between India and Pakistan. Historically, however, there has always been more trade than hostility between India and Iran.

I believe in longterm Iran will be the country US will invade next but this will result in a huge war with useage of WMD´s.

This is one reason why experts all over the world warn the US and the Brits to start the invasion. But they are still ignored by a government that has no idea what it starts or willingly ignores the risks to build up new "Axis of evil" countries.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Balschoiw- the first part of your post is pretty much in agreement with how i expect the war will be waged.... im still looking into what may happen immediatly post conflict

Balschoiw- "I believe in longterm Iran will be the country US will invade next but this will result in a huge war with useage of WMD´s"

I am not convinced by any means or to any extent that the US is planning in the present situation to invade Iran(though there are those in the administration who want to). For one thing the British would -very- likely be out of the picture for that one, US public support for such a war would i think be low(given the increasing unease even over war with Iraq).

+ Bush administration officials have been much more positive about Iran than Iraq (in some respects). There are liberal reformers in Iran ,something unthinkable in Iraq, and i have repeatedly heard Bush officials say that they have a different approach for Iran and that they have high hopes for the reformers (in which case having Iran in the 'axis of evil' speech was doubly stupid).

------------------------------------------------

From The Observer (UK)

\/

"In a stark outline of the endgame for Iraq, Britain and the US are to publish a set of disarmament 'trip-points' detailing specific weapons in his arsenal that the United Nations has listed in a private report to the Security Council circulated this weekend."

"The British and US 'trip points' will be based on a summary draft of Blix's UN report circulated by Number 10 yesterday. The document demands that Saddam:

· accounts for Iraq's al-Hussein missile system and 50 Scud Bs which the UN says 'may have been retained for a proscribed missile force';

· explains the illegal import of 131 Volga engines for its al-Samoud 2 missile system and why Unmovic, the UN inspections team, had later found 231 engines and documentation for a further 150;

· accounts for and destroys 550 mustard gas shells and 350 R-400 bombs, which are capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons, which are still outstanding;

· reveals the whereabouts of 80 tonnes of mustard gas as well as VX, Sarin and Soman gas. "

Also an opinion piece in todays paper i found interesting

Thank the Yank

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Balschoiw- "I believe in longterm Iran will be the country US will invade next but this will result in a huge war with useage of WMD´s"

I am not convinced by any means or to any extent that the US is planning in the present situation to invade Iran(though there are those in the administration who want to). For one thing the British would -very- likely be out of the picture for that one, US public support for such a war would i think be low(given the increasing unease even over war with Iraq).<span id='postcolor'>

I guess you´ll find this infos usefull to estimate the current situation and developements in Iran:

Recent elections for local officials, saw most people not voting and Islamic radicals gaining most of the offices. The increasingly youthful electorate is apparently frustrated with the inability of reformers to negotiate a loosening of the strict rules and corrupt practices imposed by the Islamic fundamentalists. By withdrawing from the electoral process, the voters are leaving only one solution to the stalemate, armed revolution.

The capture of al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan involved tracing cell phone activity that indicated at least a hundred al Qaeda members have taken refuge in Iran. The government has always denied this, but the government has no control over many Islamic radical organizations in Iran that actively support terrorism in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the West.

Osama bin Laden's four wives and twelve of his children are also thought to be in Iran, sheltered by Islamic radicals. Bin Laden himself appears to be hiding in the area of western Pakistan where the Afghan and Iranian borders meet.

Argentina is trying to extradite senior Iranian intelligence officials for participation in the bombing of a Jewish charities building in 1994. A lengthily Argentine investigation revealed the support of Iranian Islamic militants for terrorism against Jews in Argentina. The effort included bribing Argentinean officials to ignore the Iranian connection.

As you can see Iran is on the list of countries providing shelter for AQ terrorists which automatically sets them on the list for an US strike once control over Iraq has been established. I have no doubts Iran will be a follow up to Iraq.

The iranian lead may be more open than previouse leaders of the iran, but the turn towards islamic fundamentalism will not be accepted by US. They will try to intercept the process as long as they are able to. Once a islamistic extremist leadership in Iran would be established it´s too late for the US to protect their interests and stabilize Iraq in the long term.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Balschoiw-That is interesting, though it is no secret that there are terrorist/'extremist' groups in Iran. A lot may depend on how the war with Iraq unfolds regarding public perception in the US. A lot may depend also on how any war unfolds regarding Iran and its known links to Iraqs Shias

It looks like much of this information has been cut-pasted .If so i would be interested to know where from, if not i would be interested to know the sources none the less.

I still do not think a large scale Iraq type war with Iran is as inevitable as you make it out though there will be

pressure brought to bear by the US on Iran to act in relation to its terrorist groups. But there are other factors that may come into play and affect the situation including other 'rogue states' such as N. Korea ,US allies such as Britain(who would not likely support such action) etc

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is interesting, though it is no secret that there are terrorist/'extremist' groups in Iran<span id='postcolor'>

hehe, saying that a Mid-East country has terrorists living within its borders is a little like saying there are soccer fans at the World Cup.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks like much of this information has been cut-pasted .If so i would be interested to know where from, if not i would be interested to know the sources none the less.<span id='postcolor'>

Here you go. Especially Iran is well covered here:

Latest news on Iran

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 09 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hehe, saying that a Mid-East country has terrorists living within its borders is a little like saying there are soccer fans at the World Cup.<span id='postcolor'>

That's just immature, as i've said before it is only since the 1980s or so that terrorism has become widespread in the ME. There are loads of terrorists everywhere, you even had Welsh terrorist groups!