Will america go to war with china or iran

[cunobelinus]

There has been speculation that america will wage war with iran for a while but i only relised a while ago that china are the next up and coming super power of the world .China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.So will america try and attack china to stop them being more powerful than themselves because everybody knows how much of any idiot george bush is .So Do you think that america will wage war on iran or even china because it seems that george bush will do anything to stop anyone being more powerful or threating the U.S.

[rory_20_uk]

In a word: no.

Unless they are prepared to be villified by the rest of the world for the rest of eternity (or close) for that, I doubt it.

Let's face it: against China the only thing that would work would be a nuclear strike. Sure the quality of Chinese forces isn't yet up to American, but the quantity is greater, as is the will to loose lives, and the supply lines are massive for America and almost none for China.

So, unless a strike purely of missiles is planned that wouldn't win against a country the size of China (unless nuclear) it would have to be conventional as well. Which would probably require many ships... Going close to massed batteries of ground to ground missiles as well as the world's largest Airforce. Not the best, but numbers would take their toll.

Then there's the economic fall out. Suddenly the Dollar isn't stable. The Far east either dumps it out of fear or protest, causing a run on the dollar.
The massive trade America receives from China dissappears. Who replaces it? Japan or South Korea? When China is fighting the USA? Hardly.

America is finding fighting in Iraq and afghanistan difficult. Would the population accept a far more massive war (bigger than any since WW2) because of a potential economic threat???

[Mithrandir]

China, no. The oil wouldn't pay back the costs of the war ;).

Iran: PLEASE NO! Gasoline is expensive enough as it is...

besides that I'm against war.

[cunobelinus]

Well i dno just what people have been hinting about i know that it is unluckly but to be honest i wouldnt put anything past bush .Does everyone else think the same or different.Also i think that iran may be chance they go to war with them because they already have threatened them and george bush has said that they will if they dont back down on there nuclear enrichment

[AntiochusIII]

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

[Kagemusha]

With China,i dont think there is imminent danger of War.Against Iran,If US is capable of building a strong alliance otherwise it will take long time to deploy enough troops to area. My personal opinion at the moment is that its highly unlikely that there will be a War.But im known to be wrong sometimes so its still a possibility.

[Mithrandir]

Vs. China they will not be able to pull it off, not military, since China has enough nukes to bomb every single planet in the galaxy to bits, and not economicly, since they're too dependent upon one another.

Iran as new Lebensraum for Bush..hopefuly not.

[Redleg]

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."


http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=120427

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."
Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

His comments came amid a sharpening diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier refused calls for a halt to its uranium enrichment program and warned Iran could withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States, meanwhile, said the UN Security Council would consider a draft resolution that would oblige Iran to comply or face possible military action.

Rumsfeld did not allude to military options in the interview, instead portraying US efforts in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan as a bulwark against Iranian extremism.

"The last thing Iran wants is to have successful regimes, representative systems, free people in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. "It is harmful to their view of the world, to their extreme view of the world."

"So most people who suggest that the cost is too great or it's taking too long, and we should not stay the course, it seems to me you have to think what it would mean to Iran and how it would advance their cause, and their cause is a cause that is dangerous to the world."

Rumsfeld hailed the end of a four month political impasse over who should be Iraq's next prime minister as "a thrilling accomplishment."

At the same time, he said it was reasonable to expect that insurgents would try to sabotage the seating of a new government under Shiite leader Jawad al-Maliki, who has 30 days to form a cabinet.

"The new ministries named, and then approved by the parliament, will have to begin that difficult task of governing," he said. "It's a difficult assignment and it won't be easy for them."

If Iraq's interior and defense ministers are competent and govern from the center, Rumsfeld said, Iraqi forces will continue to take over responsibility for security.

"As we are able to pass over more responsibility, one would think we would be able to continue reducing down our forces," he said.

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.


The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

[Lemur]

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

[Mithrandir]

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

[AntiochusIII]

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

Actually, that was my sarcasm. Apparently I was far too subtle for my own good.

Yes, I am aware of the United State's long-term policy on that particular "Islamic Revolution." It's only natural after all the histories together, and none of them roses.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.

eh, no.

[yesdachi]

China – No, any action against China from the US (or vice versa) would be economic. A fist fight with them would really be stupid, plus (regrettably), we are co-dependant on each other right now. And any fighting would be very damaging to both of us. Politically on a global scale, The US is greatly disliked for our policy of butting in but China IMO, is disliked because everyone fears that given the oppertunitythey would devour them like a bowl of chow mein!

Iran – Yes, we are already next door and they seem to pose a threat, chances are we will keep “policing” the neighborhood. I don’t think it will be as ground troop intensive as Iraq has been thou, it would probably be more of a bomb the heck out of them and only touch foot to dirt in key areas. That way we can still spend tons of money on bombs and missiles (keeps the government contracts happy) without endangering lots of soldiers (keeps the public happy).


Where did you pull this notion from?

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that America within 2 to 3 years

[Franconicus]

Will america go to war with china or iran?
The clear answer is: Yes/NO Yes/No

Of course they will not attack China; that would be foolish and I doubt that the American people would accept that. No, never.The question is how to attack China indirectly to stop its economical growth. For me it looks like the answer is: cut of their supply of natural resources, esp. of oil. That will end their econ. raise and increase the internal tentions. So how can the US do that?

They already do everything to control the oil regions. Iran is still missing and so it is important for the Us to control that country, at least the oil. If my memory serves the Iran is the most important supplier of China.

So here to the second question. The US will not invade Iran. This would be too costly, too much blood and too much increase of crude oil price. However, Iran is more or less completly surrounded by American military. I assume that the US will do everything to get a change of regime in Iran. So they will support the opposition, challange the regime, maybe a boycott or some bombs on a ractor just to demonstrate the weakness of the government. Maybe they train some revolution forces too. In the end they will try to install another government that needs the support of the US and the US oil industry.

[rory_20_uk]

China wants resources, and has no hangups as to the nature of the country that provides them.

We in the west may place santions on a country for one act; China will gleefully take up all the slack. With 1/5 the world's population, their economy has a long way to go.

While we have morals and China doesn't have any, curbing China is all but impossible.

[Banquo's Ghost]

While we have morals and China doesn't have any, curbing China is all but impossible.

Western capitalism has morals?

That's the funniest thing I've read for ages.

[Mithradates]

We have morals in the sense that we wont terrorise are own populace and sensor infromation! at least as much as China.

[x-dANGEr]

@Main Topic:

A war with China? No, maybe another 'cold' war.
A war with Iran? Can't. Because once a war is announced against Iran, hell will break loose in Iraq (She3a will help She3a), and you know what happens..

@Tiberius: So, you're basically saying that US has the right to do anything as long as it is to keep itself the super-power in the world, keeping it's people safe?

@Redleg: The whole point is simple, as long as Israel has nukes, Iran should have them too, IMO. (Israel is by far the most successful country in dis-obeying UN decisions, doing whatever they want, and getting out of it through a veto presented by the US, so yes, they're able to use their nukes whenever they want to, and note that the UK had given them their nukes (I'm not sure if the UK gave them Nuclear heads, maybe the material for it)).

[Banquo's Ghost]

We have morals in the sense that we wont terrorise are own populace and sensor infromation! at least as much as China.

Really? Have you seen the recent slew of anti-terrorism legislation in the US and UK? What about western corporates that avoid (with tacit approval) our 'morals' by accepting China's draconian laws against free speech and selling out dissidents? What about using Chinese slave labour to undercut western labout costs?

They crush the human rights, but our corporations make good money out of exploiting that. Does this make us better than them because we're not the prison guards?