Do you think that the United States is looking for a reason to jump on Iran? Whats your opinion on the outcome of such a situation?

Its hard to say the real goals because I
mistrust media bigtime...history and facts are usually written by the winners..
If we want to know the truth,then we should hear from the defeated side too and
then judge...but even then it may not be the truth !

Quote:

---

history and facts are usually written by the winners

---

yep, history is always written by the victors. And it IS hard to judge objectively because we (the ordinary people) very rarely have all the facts. And if we did have the all the facts it is doubtful that we would synthesize them correctly.

In world government there is never any absolute good or absolute evil. Nearly every society does what it does based on its own relative sense of protection for its people.

If George Bush says they're evil, then they probably are.

If Iran get the "bomb", then the world is dead.

Their outrageous support of terrorist like "Hezbellah" is well documented.

It will brings us closer to WW3 for sure.

They will, no doubt, give Bin Laden nukes and then they will be blown to kingdom come.

Quote:

---

... because then the USA will start it? Iran may have a big mouth, just like North-Korea but they won't start WW3, they are not crazy.

---

They will not intentionally start ww3. I do think Bush has proved he is not scared to take full measure when he "thinks" he is right. Whats the purpose of still having two aircraft carriers present in the Persian Gulf? I personally think Bush is looking for a reason to jump. North Korea has a big mouth, on that I agree. If the U.S. was ever in a weakened state from being at war with another country.. I think that big mouth would lean toward action.

There is evidence that certain members of the Pentagon have been interested for some time in the destruction of the Islamic Republic. Certainly many people and organizations would have their interests served by the removal of the Islamic government.

Just as the War in Iraq was mainly about securing oil supplies and US power in the middle East, A US invasion of Iran would have the same benefits.

However, I believe the Pentagon planners are aware that a US invasion and occupation of Iran in the near future is unfeasible.

Reasons that an invasion will likely not take place:
1) Iran is significantly larger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both proven difficult to control and occupy.
2) Iran has a much more effective government than Iraq or Afg. had--Iran is actually a kind of democracy, with established command and control, military cohesiveness, and competent leadership.
3) iran has a more diversified economic and industrial base than Iraq, with a maturing military industry..meaning that Iran has the capabilities to be self-sufficient in an extended conflict.
4) Geographically, Iran is more varied and rugged than Iraq, with many areas of high mountains, forests, desert, etc. An assymetrical insurgency would be even more effective in Iran than in Iraq.
5) there is even less support internationally for a war with Iran than there was for Iraq; I doubt a single nation would support the US.
6) The current administration has spent all it's political capital and no longer has the popular authority to conduct such a war.

In short, if the Pentagon and the Administration have any sanity whatever, they will not attempt an invasion of Iran at this time. Such an act, if carried out unilaterally by an executive order, might well result in domestic civil strife, impeachment, even revolution. I also think some military commanders might refuse the order, preferring to resign.

Quote:

---

If the U.S. was ever in a weakened state from being at war with another country.. I think that big mouth would lean toward action.

---

It's a possibility, but judged on North Korea's most recent attitude they seem to be willing to negotiate a little longer, perhaps even totally give up their current nuclear politics. Perhaps they are simply trying to buy more time (like they did before), but contrary to Iran, North Korea is quite poor so they do not have that much time. I think North Korea would settle for any deal that would involve a joint-nuclear program with another country. For example support from Russia or China to get nuclear energy ready in exchange for abandoning their nuclear weapons program.

The two carriers are there for a reason indeed, but then again both Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan can be easily reached from the Arabian Sea area in case emergency actions are required. Aircraft carriers are not enough to start an invasion, as Iraq showed the bombing of Bagdad early on was highly ineffective.
I could even imagine spy planes flying towards North Korea from there, but for offensive tactics they are a bit too far away I think. Off course the US has some vessels in the Pacific Area, no doubt about it, that could also respond to N-Korea I guess.

Cheers

In political matters,I wonder how much to trust the media