Iraq invasion was a prelude to Iran invasion?

#1
I've been debating this with friends and I'm a firm believer that the only reason we invaded Iraq was so that we cleared up the airspace threats from Iraq in order to invade or strike Iran.

What do you guys think?
 
#3
Quite a wide open and dare i say it, somewhat immature and weak statement add some meat to the bones of why you (or your friends) think this and this could be quite a good thread.

Otherwise, i fear you may be in for some abuse, especially as a newbie.
 
#5
tinfoil hat time kiddiewinks
think about it
think about it again
then go ask a grown up
one who doesn't work at Mcronalds or Airsoft
then come back
cretin
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#6
Top Tip - those magic mushrooms are stronger than you think.
 
#7
Don't get me wrong mate, I wouldn't be too surprised if Iran were to get a slap soon, but I don't think Dubya could think that far ahead, let alone plan 2 steps ahead on his own.
Besides, why would we clear Iraq's airspace? Surely we should bother about Iran's airforce.
You have been reading too many issues of "conspiracy monthly" methinks.
 
#8
Bagster said:
Don't get me wrong mate, I wouldn't be too surprised if Iran were to get a slap soon, but I don't think Dubya could think that far ahead, let alone plan 2 steps ahead on his own.

You have been reading too many issues of "conspiracy monthly" methinks.
News at ten tonight is discussing the Iran issue, may be worth a watch to see what the gossip on the media front is. :yawnstretch:
 
#9
Well, I'm not much of a master debater but I think that an extra 535 miles of border to defend against attack from any direction be it North from Turkey or the Caspian, East from Iraq, West from Afganistan or south from Qatar would either add some "fear factor" to Iran or put us in a position to attack from any of a number of locations.

This being the case, I do not think Dubbya even understood it when/if he was briefed on it. I do not think that they expected the type of resistance they are getting from Iraq now. They most likely expected to go in, take sadaam out and everyones happy. Now that sounds like a Dubbya plan.

With Sadaam out of the way, the US could (and did) install forward bases along the border with Iran. Under the guise of an Iraq invasion the buildup of forces, in a geopolitical sense would be deemed "normal" and then organizing an invasion over land across a border as opposed to an ocean with established bases and airfields would make sense.

Besides, imagine if Iraq was untouched, what would you have to do to invade Iran?

I may be wrong, but it's certainly not an impossibility.
 
#11
#13
I firmly believe Iraq was set to be a launchpad into Iran and then into Syria. Why? Because Israel saw Iran ans Syria as bigger threats than Iraq. And we all know the Iraq invasion was the US doing the dirty work for Israel, don't we?

In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the US, giddy with a swift 'victory' was already threathening the Syrians and the Iranians.

This was published in '03.

I could hardly believe it when Donald Rumsfeld said the words. Not only was he accusing Syria of harboring escaped officials from Saddam Hussein's government. He also had intelligence information, he claimed, that showed Syria has been trying to develop chemical weapons.

Syria may well be guilty of harboring fugitive Iraqi officials. U.S. troops recently captured Saddam Hussein's half-brother Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, a former government official and alleged master of torture, near the Syrian border. But chemical weapons? As Yogi Berra reportedly once said: "It's beginning to look like déj ... vu all over again."

Baghdad had barely been secured by U.S. troops and the looting hadn't even stopped before the Bushies were making warlike noises at the Syrians. Picking up the refrain that "there are chemical weapons in Syria," President George W. Bush, fresh from a weekend at Camp David, warned the Syrian government that it "needs to cooperate" with the United States and its partners by not harboring supporters of Hussein's government. This prompted Syrian political analyst Mohammed Aziz Shukri to reply: "Who, in the name of heaven, does he think he is? Is he the god of this Earth?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-03.htm

Another story published at around the same time.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a stern warning to Syria on Friday, saying military supplies, including night-vision goggles, were passing from that country into Iraq, posing a "direct threat" to coalition forces.

"We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.

Rumsfeld also warned Iran -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- about proxy forces moving into Iraq, where the United States and coalition forces are waging a war to topple the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/28/sprj.irq.pentagon.syria/index.html

Something happened along the way to convince Rummy it might do him good to hold his guns. The insurgency perhaps?
 
#14
just as a note of wisdom.

conspiracy theories are just that. theories.

theres always a little truth in whats going on even if it is mislaid and twisted into a horific "theory"

BUT, at what point does a theory become a reality? if everyone in the planet had to derive a theory, many theories would come to the same conclusions. but someone is always right.

not saying that the above is right, but who can say it isnt wrong either. the real proof is out of reach and therefore, a little too early to start a CT without getting hammered for it.

get proof, get the story, write a theory. but tbh becareful where u write it.

until then keep it in the pub
 
#15
In 50 years they will open the box to the public, I'll be long gone by that stage.

It will probably turn out to be the best intelleigence coup in history. Someone conned Uncle Sam big time. Bearing in mind that the world new IRAQ didn't have any nasty surprises, who had the most to gain to see the Iraqis turned over?

Why; their age old enemy Iran. They probably supplied the bogus info, lit the blue touch paper and stood back to watch - and then reap the benefits of the post invasion debacle. The real question is what did Bush say to B liar to get him on board? :frustrated:
 
#16
Arfur-Roe-v2s said:
In 50 years they will open the box to the public, I'll be long gone by that stage.

It will probably turn out to be the best intelleigence coup in history. Someone conned Uncle Sam big time. Bearing in mind that the world new IRAQ didn't have any nasty surprises, who had the most to gain to see the Iraqis turned over?

Why; their age old enemy Iran. They probably supplied the bogus info, lit the blue touch paper and stood back to watch - and then reap the benefits of the post invasion debacle. The real question is what did Bush say to B liar to get him on board? :frustrated:
thats easy to answer....... HEEL BOY! SIT! GOOD BOY NOW I CAN SHRINK THE DEBT FROM WWII.
 

Latest Threads

Top