www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Will there be an iranian war?

Today (Oct 20) Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Mahmoud Chaharbaghshe warned that if Iran is bombed, in the first minute of the attack, Iran will fire 11.000 missiles and mortar rounds at US and Israeli bases, and he also implied Iran would actively be supported by Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.

I think a war is inevitable.
Stephanos I

The Blessing of the Lord!

Dear Dr. Eric,

Accept that job offer, come, and be welcome. If you'ld like to come first for a visit, please do. Just do not, under any circumstances, plan to visit Dublin on 17 March - that day the traffic is unbearable and indescribable.

See you soon!

Fr. Serge

Blahoslovy!

As St. Patrick is my Confirmation Namesake I don't know how I can avoid your Church on 17 March.

Does he have an Eastern calendar date?

(I'm still waiting for an e-mail from the owner of the clinic.)

Since we celebrate the feast of St. Patrick on the Julian Calendar, the traffic should not be a problem! In 2008 17/30 March will be a Sunday - and in Ireland St. Patrick's Day is exempt from all characteristics of Great Lent! Incidentally, in 2008 17/30 March comes after Latin Easter, which will certainly seem odd, but there it is.

Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic liturgical books which mention him at all have him on 17 March (or 30 March if you keep the Julian Calendar).

Fr. Serge

Blahoslovy!

Does that mean I can have venison and mashed potatoes on St. Patrick's Feast?

As one who has been travelling regularly to the Muslim world, and has been to Iran twice now, I can acknowledge that perhaps my personal experiences have been coloring, even to an excessive degree, my personal views on this kind of subject. Anyway, some thoughts and observations:

1) I don't think Iran wants a military conflict with the US.

2) I think we tend to miss the fact that as Persian Shia, the Iranians actually see themselves as a very isolated country, surrounded by predominately Sunni Islamic ones, and that it's propsects for engaging in aggression or entering into alliances with other countries and organizations is probably fairly limited.

3) I remain unconvinced that a nuclear-armed Iran, if that indeed is where we are heading, is such a critical threat to the US, given that we have dealt with a nuclear USSR, and still have to contend with a nuclear China, North Korea, and of all things, Pakistan. I may be completely missing the boat, but I believe Pakistan is far more of a genuine, potential long-term threat to the US than Iran will ever be. If we can make our peace with a nuclear Pakistan, I fail to see why we cannot with a nuclear Iran.

4) Having given some critical thought to the wars of the past 100 years, I can honestly say that I sincerely believe every US war during my lifetime, including the present ones, have been morally defensible, aside from all sorts of legitimate discretionary questions as to whether they should have been undertaken and as to how they were run. I must honestly confess that I would have to hold a US attack on Iran in the present circumstances as being morally unjust and indefensible, assuming there is no clear Iranian attack on the US or our troops.

Best,
Robster

Whether or not there is a war with Iran depends on the crackpot in charge of Iran. His alliances with Chavez and North Korea as well as his relationship with Putin and the Iranian-Syrian Hezbollah make him a very dangerous man. Hezbollah is everywhere.

While many on this board go about trashing Bush, calling the US a bully, worrying what the rest of the world thinks of the US (I don�t care what the Western European leaders think) what we have seen in the Middle East since the end of World War II is a militant Islam that sees the West as its enemy and will not stop hating or attacking the West any way it can. The days of great Muslim armies are over, but the terror networks can create tremendous damage and loss of life.

The support for Putin I see on this board is nauseating. Putin is KGB. He has always been and will continue to be. Hey, here, Bush bashing goes on all the time. Even I do it. Try that in Russia - bash Putin. If you have a TV station, watch it be taken from you and you get thrown in prison. It goes on.

Poland has been warning its neighbors about a resurgent Russia that sees its neighbors as pawns that should be under Moscow's control.

Though much can be said of Putin and his motives, it can't be denied that Russia has stronger footing today than it did under Yeltsin.

It would not be good if Russia involved itself in an Iranian conflict.

Terry

Today the Middle East is abuzz with news reports that the US is planning to set up 4 military bases in Lebanon, including one very close to the Syrian border. If this story turns out to be true it will be just one more example of how out of control and dangerous the Bush administration has become. And if we were truly serious about the "War on Terror" we'd do something about Christ hating Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9-11 Hijackers hailed from, instead of Syria, where Christians are safe enough to attend church and participate in public religious processions.

Brother Lawrence, Amen!

Joe

Yes, I also agree with Lawrence.

Saudi Arabia is the immortal head of the hydra.

The latest Zogby Poll is showing 52 pct of Americans in favor of bombing Iran !

Whatever happened to Dennis Kucinich's plans to attempt to institute impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney ?

Twits.

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM


A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same � but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran � regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran � 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran � 19 percent overall said they weren�t sure which candidate to choose.

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place � if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush�s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).

As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 � of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don�t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.