No country can attack us, Iran says

[cal04]

edit to put in CNN article

Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defence minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying. "We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18285895.htm

Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html

[Bhaisahab]

1. doesn't matter

you WILL be attacked anyway. the batshit insane aristrocats in washington dc dont give a fuck about deterrence. coz they aint the ones doin the fighting. and your missiles will fall way too short of their silken sheet bedrooms.

[leesa]

15. And they WILL repel them. So do we have to prove that EVERY country

in the ME can beat our ass?

[DukeBlue]

23. Not that it is a good idea

But you don't think that Iran is able to defend against a coordinated air strike using stealth aircraft or cruise missiles?

They are not able to do that with what they have. Of course attacking them would be pretty stupid. This is all saber rattling.

[BUSHOUT]

53. Your points are flawed

Certainly the USA could successfully strike them. But what targets would they strike? Do you think the US "intelligence" in Iran has much of a clue what needs hitting to avoid a damaging counterstrike? Even if Irans warheads can only reach Israel, that's pretty much USA as far as they're concerned anyway.

And after all the known targets are finnished with, what else can the USA do to Iran? Roll 300,000 troops accross the border like it did to Iraq? I'd like to see that.

It is saber rattling, but on both sides. Bush can pretty much rule out military action in Iran because the USA hasn't the resources or the will for it at the moment.

[LiberalFighter]

81. And what will the neighboring Muslim countries think...

when Israel is the counterstrike? How many fellow muslims from other countries would volunteer their services in that aggression?

I think they will consider it a positive result and a rallying point for all or most of the Muslim countries.

[don954]

63. from the research I have done, it looks like they have

the capability to track our advanced aircraft, here is a really rough draft summery on their arms:

Military branches:
Islamic Republic of Iran regular forces (includes Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force and Air Defense Command), Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) (includes Ground Forces, Air Force, Navy, Qods Force , and Basij ), Law Enforcement Forces
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 20,937,348 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 12,434,810 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 912,569 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Airports:
303 (2003 est.)
Airports - with paved runways:
total: 125
over 3,047 m: 39
2,438 to 3,047 m: 25
1,524 to 2,437 m: 26
914 to 1,523 m: 31
under 914 m: 4 (2003 est.)
Airports - with unpaved runways:
total: 178
over 3,047 m: 1
1,524 to 2,437 m: 9
914 to 1,523 m: 129
under 914 m: 39 (2003 est.)
Heliports:
13 (2003 est.)

Merchant marine:
total: 134 ships (1,000 GRT or over) 4,715,242 GRT/8,240,069 DWT
by type: bulk 40, cargo 36, chemical tanker 3, container 7, liquefied gas 1, multi-functional large load carrier 5, petroleum tanker 33, roll on/roll off 8, short-sea/passenger 1
registered in other countries: 10 (2003 est.)

Ports and harbors:
Abadan (largely destroyed in fighting during 1980-88 war), Ahvaz, Bandar 'Abbas, Bandar-e Anzali, Bushehr, Bandar-e Emam Khomeyni, Bandar-e Lengeh, Bandar-e Mahshahr, Bandar-e Torkaman, Chabahar (Bandar Beheshti), Jazireh-ye Khark, Jazireh-ye Lavan, Jazireh-ye Sirri, Khorramshahr (limited operation since November 1992), Now Shahr

Telephone system:
general assessment: inadequate but currently being modernized and expanded.
domestic: as a result of heavy investing in the telephone system since 1994, the number of long-distance channels in the microwave radio relay trunk has grown substantially; many villages have been brought into the net; the number of main lines in the urban systems has approximately doubled; and thousands of mobile cellular subscribers are being served; moreover, the technical level of the system has been raised by the installation of thousands of digital switches
international: country code - 98; HF radio and microwave radio relay to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Syria, Kuwait, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan; submarine fiber-optic cable to UAE with access to Fiber-Optic Link Around the Globe (FLAG).



Aircraft:
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29M Fulcrum, quantity 80, info:
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=5


Chengdu F-7MG, quantity unknown, info:
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=21
No image

Grumman F-14D Tomcat, quantity 55, info
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=14


Aircraft Armament:
S-300 air defense missiles
Buk M1 air defense missiles
Tor M1 air defense missiles
Mosquito anti-ship missiles
Yakhont anti-ship missiles

CIA reports suggest recent Russian deals to install new advanced aircraft radar tracking systems over all major cities. It is unknown if this has been completed yet.

Ground
Anti personnel land mines (locally made)
Iskander-E tactical ground-to-ground missiles with a range of nearly 300 kilometers
550 BMP-3 armored infantry vehicles
T-72 tanks
.50 Cal BMG rifles Qty 100,000 minimum
AR - 10A4 Carbine Rifles Qty 450,000 minimum
Fragmentation Grenades
Flash Grenades
Smoke Grenades
Gas Grenades – pepper, tear, and nerve
Various Russian and American made rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other misc armament
Infrared & Starlight Night vision systems, vehicle, gun, and soldier mount
FHSS wideband battlefield communications system, Russian & American sources
Sea
Sovremenny-class destroyers
Possible ex-russian nucular powered submarines
Project 877 diesel submarines

[DoNotRefill]

75. dude, you're joking, right?

You don't SERIOUSLY believe that Iran would win a stand-up fight with the US military, do you?

[Pachamama]

78. I believe there would be "NO WINNERS"...only lots of Dead & more

turmoil, anomousity & conflict in the world...and the US even more at risk to an attack against us on our soil....

Scary thing is that I think the maniacs running this country will do it...I really do....its not a matter of if, but rather "when"...

:scared:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

80. If you read Russia and much of the ME into the equation, i just might

happen.

Bush has brought us many more enemies than friends into this equation. Toss China, Korea, France and Germany in for good measure...

Hey, neighborhoods eventually gang up on the bully from down the street. It's a possibility.

[TankLV]

89. Actually, I do. It's all elementary.

All it takes is one or 2 nukes and our soldiers are "toast". Large sophisticated "armies", etc. don't "win" wars anymore.

The Vietnamese kicked our butts - or have you forgotton?

Yes, the Iranians WILL kick our butts too.

That is why bushco must be defeated and stopped before they go any further with THEIR insane plans for the world.

I don't especially look forward to ANY part of the world turning to glass - ever!

Don't you agree?

[DoNotRefill]

90. The Vietnamese did NOT kick our butts in battle...

and no, I haven't forgotten. The war was lost politically.

Before you freak out at that comment: How many US dead were there in Vietnam? How many North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese from the opposition died? Giap put it at well over 1 million...

Saying the Vietnamese "kicked our butts" is grossly inaccurate.

[TankLV]

95. So - they held a parade and thanked us?

I seem to remember us falling all over each other with our tails tucked between our legs with all our guys and others trying to scramble aboard those helicopters from the US Embassy.

SURE DIDN'T LOOK LIKE WINNING TO ME!

The Vietnamese FORCED US OUT - we left in disgrace - running as fast as we could before they caught up to us!

Yeah, we sure kicked butt that time, huh?

[DoNotRefill]

97. Did I say we won Vietnam?

No, I didn't. We pulled out. And what you're talking about happened long AFTER all major US combat units had been withdrawn.

[TankLV]

105. And why did we pull out - BECAUSE THEY KICKED US OUT!

WE GAVE UP = THEY WON!

Their tactics worked. Ours didn't.

Looks like they kicked out butts good!

[DoNotRefill]

133. We pulled out....

because the war was unpopular AT HOME.

If the war had been popular in the US, we'd have either won or would STILL be fighting it.

[NickB79]

136. And the results of a "win" in Vietnam

Would have been over 500,000 US soldiers dead, probably over 10 million Vietnamese dead, a few million from Cambodia and Laos for good measure, and possibly the use of a few small nukes. That would be a win? The only way to win in Vietnam would have been to take up a scorched-earth policy (even greater than the "destroy the village to save it" policy we already had) and kill countless civilians to get the Viet Cong fighters as well. Thank God the war was unpopular at home, because I wouldn't want to live in a country where killing millions of innocent civilians had widespread support.

Congratulations, we won the war in Vietnam. We're now even worse than the fucking Nazis in terms of genocide. Some win that would be.

[chomskysright]

156. 'win' talk is idiotic re: WAR for no one wins

[MHalblaub]

161. Except Boeing, Sikorsky, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell,...

[tavalon]

163. And our ever popular Halliburten n/t

[VegasWolf]

143. We'd still be in Vietnam if the war was "popular"? Jeezus. n/t

[tavalon]

164. Yeah, it's really gutwrenching to think

that right and wrong have nothing to do with why our leaders send the poor off to fight their wars. If you look at the last few wargames we played in, morality wasn't even in the top 10.

[VegasWolf]

141. The war was lost politically? I guess all those body bags coming

home every day had nothing to do with the political will.

[tavalon]

162. The term "kicked our butts"

has nothing to do with numbers. In the end, we left Vietnam, quickly, with our American tail firmly tucked. Yes, they lost more lives but history records that they won the war (even if that wasn't the way it was painted back then). If we play the body bag game in Iraq, we are "kicking their butts" but it isn't really true, is it? We will slaughter and they will win. They've made it clear that the only way we will have Iraq is when we've pried it from every one of their cold dead hands. And they will fight as hard and as mean and subversively as the Vietcong ever did. And they will win.

[Redstone]

98. They don't have to win a "stand-up fight"

They can go to ground like the Iraqis did.

And the Iraqis are pretty much winning, yes?

Redstone

[DoNotRefill]

100. They are?

You mean the Iraqis have occupied our inhabitable areas? Or do you mean that they've driven the foreign invaders from their country?

[Redstone]

103. yes, they are.

They occupy all the "inhabitable areas" that we haven't destroyed. They're evrywhere, and we can't kill them all.

They haven't driven out the foreign invaders, but are in the process of doing so. Remember, it took the Vietnamese a few years.

Redstone

[DoNotRefill]

104. No, no, no...

I asked if they've occupied OUR inhabitable areas. You know, the USA.

So let's sum up. They have not occupied the US. They had their own country, which we've occupied, and where we go pretty much at will. Their attacks take on two main forms: Killing noncombatants, either US or Iraqis, or trying to stand up to our fighting units, a la Fallujah. And they're on the cusp of victory???

You say "we can't kill them all". Well, I hate to tell you this, but Bush thinks we can kill a whole goddamned LOT of them, and I have to agree with that assessment, especially given our demonstrated lack of concern for noncombatants.

Let me ask you this. What do you reasonably think the life expectancy of a Jihadist over there is once he actually tries to fight the US? And what's the average life expectancy of an 11-B over there fighting them? If Bush could kill a million Jihadists over there in the next four years, at a cost of 58,000 US lives, do you REALLY have ANY doubt that he would do it??? It's Verdun all over again.

[Stand and Fight]

109. 11B, eh? The INfantry are not the INvincible.

Don't come in here trying to throw around military MOS's thinking you will own the discussion. How utterly immature! You're naive in your outlook if you think for one minute than an attack on Iran would go unchallenged by their allies in the world. Other countries do depend on Iran's exports for their livelihood, and you can be rest assured that they will intervene to prevent that livelihood from being threatened. You seem to champion the Bush administration agenda of global hegemony, but I would caution you to not be so narrow in your view of a superbly volatile situation. We are not talking about a social and political implosion if we invade Iran and are successful for a time -- we are talking about a global explosion if we go to far in our pursuit of "freedom". There are other actors on the world stage that are quickly growing weary of America's outburst, and you are severely handicapped in your thinking if you believe that the US can take them all on and not suffer horribly at home. And we will be made to suffer. Stop talking tactics and talk strategy in regards to a potential conflict in Iran. Think of the long-term, not the short term consequences that such an attack would bring. Surely, you cannot rightly believe that US troops having to travel around the world can sustain continued loses as we shut down bases in Germany and Korea? Do you honestly believe that they will not eventually begin to bring Mr. Bush's war to OUR front doors? There are ways and means of fighting without direct engagement.

[DoNotRefill]

112. you call ME immature....

Mr. Star Wars? Pot, meet kettle.

I'm NOT championing Bush's agenda. I'm merely pointing out reality.

You seem to think that if we invade Iran, the rest of the world will fall over themselves to join the Rebel Alliance and attack the evil Empire. That's simply not realistic. There are a great many countries which are having very real problems with Islamic fundamentalism, and like it or not, Iran is one of the two or three main sources of that fundamentalism. The removal of the current theocracy in Iran would be viewed as a good thing by a great many people, many of whom are NOT Americans. This would be counterbalanced by the fact that it was the Americans removing them. Worst-case, for countries like Russia and China, it would be a political draw. Or are you saying that Syria would invade us?

As for "bringing Mr. Bush's war to our front door", I'd suggest that given the huge attack on the American economy and the deaths of three thousand or so civilians in 2001, plus the other attacks around the world and here at home prior to that, the war is already here, and it predates BOTH Clinton and Bush 43's terms in office.

[Stand and Fight]

116. What?

What the hell does Star Wars have to do with what I posted? My avatar image has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Your tactic speaks for itself... Immature indeed.

I never said anywhere in my post that "the rest of the world will fall over themselves to the Rebel Alliance and attack the evil Empire." That is pure nonsense and you know it. I see you could not form a constructive response and so you resort to childish tantrums. You keep injecting words into other people's posts that were not there in the first place. No one has ever suggested that they believe we would be invaded by any other country... Plenty of people have indicated -- myself included -- that we would be attacked by other countries.

You seem to think that the rest of the world would rally to the US "Christian" side on the basis of Iran being a Muslim nation. Quite your damnable elusive bible thumping and opaque hatred of Muslims. That shows that you have a clearly distorted view of the world, as recent polls from around the world indicate that the VAST majority do not condone the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Furthermore, countries are withdrawing from your president's "Coalition of the Willing."

Did you also happen to miss the fact that the world's opinion of the US under George W. Bush is diminishing -- not increasing? Guess you did not get that memo! Action in Iran would only add to this sharp decrease in sentiments for America's foreign policy. Hell, even our so-called allies are not in agreement with our country's actions in the Middle East! Do you really think attacking Iran or Syria would improve that and bring allies and foes to our wars flocking into the American camp? The opinion of the world community has worsened NOT improved after the US invaded Iraq, so do you really think invading Iran would help that image and bring more into the wings of the "Coalition of the Willing"? Even the Iraqis have shown signs of losing patience with us -- if the insurgency is not testament enough -- and it is getting worse over there despite the upcoming elections. If so, you have seriously deluded yourself of reality, and the hard reality is that we are losing ground on the world stage, not gaining ground. Just take a look at some of the following articles:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/20/Columns/Poll__World_s_opinion.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,880724,00.html

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/mmae_20050125.html

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=78fc336bf20a4fb8709e8a0104615b62

[DoNotRefill]

117. And if other countries attacked us....

what response do you think Bush would have? Do you think he'd say "oh, I was wrong! Better pull out of the middle east!" Or do you think he'd say "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out!"?

Don't you think that foreign leaders KNOW he'd choose the second option??? Do you REALLY think the rest of the world is as stupid as Bush is?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I do NOT think the rest of the world would "rally to the US "Christian" side on the basis of Iran being a Muslim nation." You claim I put words in YOUR mouth?!?!? Once again, Pot, meet Kettle. What I think would happen is that Russia (borderline a Christian nation, but not really) and China (COMPLETELY not a Christian nation) will act in their own self-interests. Russia is currently battling Islamic fundamentalists militarily, so I'm SURE they'd LEAP to the defense of a fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy (that's sarcasm...just want to make sure you realize that). China is currently trying to supress Islam of all kinds in their western provinces. You remember how fond they were of the Falun Gong? Well, Islam, even MODERATE Islam, is 50 times the threat to the government of China than Falun Gong EVER was, so I'm sure they'd leap to defend Iran, too.

So, we've got Russia and China with their interests basically in line with ours on the point of going into Iran, without it being a Christian thing at all. So who else is going to attack the US? Syria? Jordan? Egypt? WITH WHAT? Fundamentalist suicide bombers? Hate to tell you this, but the Fundamentalists suicide bombers are already trying to attack us, and there's a finite number of those to go around. With conventional forces? Yeah, I'm sure all those T-72s and T-80s are amphibious, and impervious to US fire, and their doctrine has improved so much since the LAST time the Israelis kicked their collective asses.

So who else is going to attack us? France and Germany? RIIIIIIIGHT. That'll happen!!! India? Hey, in their book, killing Islamic fundamentalists keeps them out of Kashmir, so India wins. Pakistan? Yes, they have nukes. They're up to what, 2 of them by now? They're so busy whoring for Bush RIGHT NOW because they know what would happen to them if they didn't. So who is left? Canada and Mexico? Eastern Europe? South America? Australia? Japan? South Africa and Zimbabwe? Cuba? Grenada? All military POWERHOUSES, true... Just WHO do you think will attack us to defend Iran? And how do you think they will attack us? Please be specific.

As for "world opinion", well, hate to tell you this, but world opinion doesn't mean DICK as far as halting a military offensive. You seem to think Bush gives a rat's ASS about world opinion. He doesn't. And you seem to think that the world hating us means that they would band together to fight us. That's not KIND of doubtful, that's a practical impossibility. They lack the ability to fight us. Why? Simply look at the budget expenditures on the military between us and the next ten highest military spenders. Who spends more on their military: The US, or the next ten highest military spenders COMBINED?

Rawk on!!!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/swk.php

[dansolo]

147. You forget one major factor - OIL

Neither Russia nor China would want the U.S. to control Iranian oil. This factor trumps all others. As the oil resources get depleted in the coming decades, having control over the dwindling resources will be essential. China has a rapidly increasing demand for oil, and they will not stand back and let the U.S. control all of the middle eastern oil. If China is looking to eventually challenge the U.S., they need to be assured of supplies of oil.

[ProfessorGAC]

118. An Honest Question For You

What huge attack on the U.S. economy? In my analyses, the impact of 9/11 on the macroeconomy was negligible and short term. I did the analyses in an effort to combat the right wing canard about the economy not being Li'l Georgie's fault and that it would be better if 9/11 hadn't happened.

I can find no evidence that there was any enduring impact from 9/11 on the U.S. economy.

Do you have other information?
The Professor

[DoNotRefill]

119. the figures I've seen...

put the direct damage caused by 9/11 in the multi-trillion dollar range, not counting increases in budget expenditures for "homeland security" and the associated wars 9/11 kicked off. As the saying goes: "A trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about some serious money."

[ProfessorGAC]

121. That Report Is Bogus

A lot of that money is sunk cost. We would have paid cops, firefighters and TSA people anyway. There was no real increases, just a different accounting line item.

The wars are not economic, they're financial. There is no cost to the economy since virtually all materiel is made by U.S. firms and paid for with gov't money. (Direct Gov't Spending is a part of GDP, remember.)

In reality, there was a 2 month deceleration of both consumption and monetary velocity, followed by a 5 month period of higher than previous velocity that brought the system back into equilibrium.

The real damage was somewhere around $20 billion dollars and business recovery costs (getting things back up and running) about matching that. Those are figures directly from the Commerce Department's database.

Everything else you considered, while substantial, is either not an macroeconomic consideration, or is neutral on the economy. (It doesn't matter to the GDP whether the gov't is buying bombs to drop on Iraq, or a guy who works at WTC is buying gas for his car.)

I just want you to be aware that you were dangerously close to buying the neocons excuses for the sluggish economy. 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq have NOT been economic drags. They, if anything, are merely redistributing the overall money flow into different siloes.
The Professor

[DoNotRefill]

123. While the various things may not be "economic drags"....

I'm virtually POSITIVE that the money (which is trillions of dollars alltogether) could have been spent better elsewhere, and SHOULD have been spent elsewhere. That's totally ignoring the human costs. So yes, the government and economy are still spending the money, but it's largely being wasted on things which provide little or no benefit to us. Given a choice between buying bombs or buying butter, I doubt many people here would support buying bombs. And as a result of 9/11, we're missing a SHITLOAD of butter we would have had if it hadn't happened.

See what I'm saying?

[ProfessorGAC]

129. No Disagreement

There's a difference between economic impact and priorities. I would much rather we spent >$100 billion on education, or roads, or jopbs programs than Iraq. But, the money, no matter where it's spent is still economically valid.

So, we agree in everything except in definition of terms. It's just that i can't broach the idea that 9/11 negatively impacted the economy, because that's what right wing excuse makers say. And, they're wrong.
The Professor

[DoNotRefill]

131. But here's the point....

We've sunk TONS of money (literally, tons of $100 bills) into stuff that will NEVER produce JACK SHIT to help our economy. We've effectively pissed it away.

Now those same tons of money if they had been sunk into infrastructure or education would be paying dividends for decades down the road. Nobody "just builds infrastructure" for the hell of it. We build infrastructure so that we can operate more efficiently economically, so we produce more for less and with less waste and cost. Nobody says ""Let's build schools WAY past needed capacity because it'll be good for shits and giggles and the buildings will look nice", they build schools so that our people are more educated and better able to compete in the economy. Nobody says "Hey, let's build more hospitals than we need!" They build hospitals and implement healthcare reform so that we as a people are healthier, so we live longer, more productive lives.

With just about EVERYTHING we could have done with the money, we'd be reaping economic profits for decades, if not centuries. Except, of course, for what we actually DID with the money, which was to blow shit up, and then blow it up some more.

[ProfessorGAC]

134. It Already Has

Who do you think makes the planes, guns, bombs, bullets, missiles, etc., etc., etc.?

American companies employing american workers. The money is in the economy just like it would be if we paid a whole bunch of workers to build bridges and roads. The money doesn't care what it's spent on!

We will get something from this, in a purely economic sense. You and i won't like what our money has bought, but we do get something from it, and hundreds of thousands of workers get paid and spend money on normal consumables.

It's also well known, that as little as i might like the M-I Complex, the technology from that work does trickel down to consumers over a 3 to 12 year period. Again, that's not what you or i would have wanted, but it's the truth. Fear moved this spending way higher on the priority list for most americans, so the gov't got away with it.

Like i said, we agree on the misplaced priorities, but we're disagreeing on definitions. If not for that, we'd be on the same page, rather than just reading the same book.
The Professor

[jayfish]

120. Some Light Reading For You

Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq But Losing the War, Some Officers Say

<SNIP>
Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."

Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.
</SNIP>

Russia and Iran: Comrades in arms

<SNIP>
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was due to leave Russia on Thursday after a four-day visit to formalize the arms accord that was outlined during Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's visit to Moscow in March.

On October 2, the defense ministers of Russia and Iran signed a framework agreement on military cooperation. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Russia would only provide Iran with "defensive" weapons, adding that such sales would not violate international agreements. The agreement is not directed against third countries, Shamkhani said. He also described Iran's relations with Russia as "historical and long-term". This week's meetings took on new significance in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Iran and Russia have expressed their willingness to help equip the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance forces, but both countries are concerned about the consequences of possible US strikes into Afghanistan. Iran has warned the US not to use its airspace for any attacks. "Today our cooperation is becoming more urgent. The situation prompts that," Interfax news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

Government officials are yet to divulge details of the upcoming deals, but sources and analysts say that they may include spare parts for Russian-made weapons, new fighter jets, and possibly air defense, ground-to-ground and anti-ship systems. Some Russian media outlets have speculated that Tehran is interested in acquiring long-range S-300 air defense missiles, and medium-range Buk M1 and Tor M1 air defense missiles.

Iranian military officials are also reportedly considering purchasing Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jets with a range of more than 3,000 kilometers, Iskander-E tactical ground-to-ground missiles with a range of nearly 300 kilometers, and 550 BMP-3 armored infantry vehicles.

Iran also would like to buy supersonic Mosquito and Yakhont anti-ship missiles. The Yakhont missiles have a range of 300 kilometers. The Mosquito missiles, manufactured at the Progress plant in Arseniyev, Primorie region, near the border with China, have a range of 120 kilometers. The missiles fly at altitudes below 10 meters and their designers claim that Russia previously sold them to both China and Vietnam. The delivery of the Mosquito missile system to China was a part of larger, $800 million deal to build two Sovremenny-class destroyers for the Chinese navy.
</SNIP>


Jay

[DoNotRefill]

124. The Russians, like the Israelis...

sell military equipment to ANYBODY who has cash and asks for them. It's the old "we'll sell them the rope to hang themselves with" philosophy at work. That doesn't mean that they are bosom buddies with them, ESPECIALLY when they are in a shooting war in Chechnya with Iranian-supported Islamic fundamentalists.

They supplied most of the Arab nations with weapons during the last half of the Soviet era.

It still didn't stop those countries from getting their asses stomped by both Israel and the US whenever they met in combat. Why? Because most of their gear is JUNK. The quote mentioned the BMP-3. I PERSONALLY (and legally) own stuff that can take those out. Against USGI troops and equipment? They're just good ways to concentrate enemy soldiers so killing them is easier. The Russians even went as far as to sell surplus diesel "pigboats" to the Iranians, "Kilo" class IIRC. Same exact deal.

The US spends something along the lines of 400 BILLION dollars a year for defense now (FY 2005), NOT counting supplemental requests for Iraq and Afghanistan. That's as much as the other top TWENTY FIVE NATIONS COMBINED spend on their combined militaries. You read that right. If you look at the top 26 countries by amount spent on their military, the US is at the top, and spends more than ALL THE REST COMBINED. That's from an article on Commondreams.org, so I doubt it's RW propaganda.

[jayfish]

126. That Was A Starting Point ...

for you, not an ending point. Google "Iran Russian cooperation military" and read some more.

EDIT: I will be gone for a week so a reply is not necessary

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

132. OK

Have a fun trip, and be safe.

[chomskysright]

157. its the old, cold war again

[Stand and Fight]

108. You're the one joking, right?!?

Iran alone would not win in a "stand-up fight" -- whatever the fuck that is -- with the United States. However, you are ignoring one very critical and volatile issue here -- if we go into Iran we are not saying we're JUST taking on Iran in the eyes of other Arabs. Let's say it plainly, many Muslims in the Middle East that have set on the side-lines will be incensed if our country attacks yet another one of their neighbors. Do you really think that America's military powers can sustain a continued attack by fanatics on their turf? Do you really believe that an attack on Iran would not serve as a further rallying cry for even moderate Muslims in the Middle East? United States aggression cannot continue in this manner, because we have to remember something... Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is a two-way street that others can invoke if they begin to see the USA as a threat to the world. No amount of military power can overcome these objectives for a prolonged period. I believe that they will strike at us by any means available and necessary. Vietnam... We've gone through this already in our history, and if the leaders of our country are naive enough to believe that we can stand against the majority of the Middle East -- and I assure you that this will end up being the case if we invade Iran and/or Syria -- then we are in for one helluva rude awakening. It won't just be the Middle East we'll be taking on either -- they do have allies you know... Most notably Russia... I pray God that they are wiser in their restraint, because the next attack on this country will make 9/11 look like a fucking day at the park. I pray they are not as naive in their outlook at you appear to be, because if they are we are in for one helluva ride -- this could equate to the endgame.

[DoNotRefill]

113. ROTFLMAO!!!!

"It won't just be the Middle East we'll be taking on either -- they do have allies you know... Most notably Russia..."

Oh, yes, Russia, the OTHER Iranian-described "Great Satan", will SURELY support the Islamic Fundamentalists, just like they're doing in Chechnya. Just like I'm SURE the Chinese will jump in on the side of the Islamic Fundamentalists given their suppression of Islam in the western areas of their country...

[qwertyMike]

144. There ain't no stand-up fights anymore

Where would they hold it?

A kind of Super Bowl in some desert?

[LiberalFighter]

82. That doesn't include the resources available from neighboring countries...

Men and weaponry.

In addition, they would have the advantage of having it on site. It would take them less time to call up additional forces to fight compared to the US having to transport them and there may be a deployment problem if they need to draft and train them.

Then there would be the problem of our service people morale going down the tubes because of what has happened in Iraq. We are already at the bottom of the barrel. We are using National Guard that we wouldn't usually. We are sending women to fight when they wouldn't usually. The services are not meeting their quotas for enlistments.

[Orsino]

77. Yep.

Sounds as though the Bushistas provoked just the sound bite they wanted from Iran.

How long before FOX starts running the "Showdown With Iran" logo 24/7, whipping the faithful into another war frenzy?

[bowens43]

2. we can thank bush for this.

In related news:

Bush Blocks Euro Plan
To End Iran Impasse
By Anton La Guardia
Diplomatic Editor
The Telegraph - UK
1-17-5


America has hobbled an effort by Britain and other European countries to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme.

Senior officials said privately that the US would not offer economic or political concessions to woo Teheran.

President George W Bush is trying to improve relations with Europe and will visit London and Brussels next month.

But in private, American officials are furious at the European Union's "engagement" with Teheran. They say they will not co-operate with what they see as the dangerous policy of giving the regime "rewards for bad behaviour".

<snip>


The idiot wants war.

[leftchick]

3. he sure does...

It is all part of the New AmeriKan Imperialism!

[punpirate]

9. Iran, at present...

... has a population something like 55-60% under the age of 25--when that group comes of political age, the ayatollahs will probably be history, and the country will, of its own accord, become much more semi-secular. The only war it has fought in the last twenty-five years is against Iraq, and that was, by most accounts, defensive--Hussein started it over disagreements about the Shat al-Arab waterway.

Iran is surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons--Pakistan, India, Israel. Ever since Iraq began a nuclear program in the late `70s, Iran has been diddling with their own, beginning in the early `80s, but the evidence is that it's hardly a crash program. Now that Hussein is gone, the only nuclear-capable countries making bellicose noises toward Iran are the United States and Israel. Time and continued international monitoring, as with Iraq, would do fine.

But, the neo-cons are in a hurry, and they still remember that Iran thumbed its nose at the United States in 1979. The neo-cons resent that Iran has supported terrorist groups supporting Palestinians, without ever making the necessary self-reflection that the US, in turn, has been supporting Israel in its occupation of Palestinian territory.

The neo-cons will push mightily for some manner of military action against Iran, if only to convince themselves that they are right.

[Benhurst]

37. Yes, the Europeans should not co-operate with the United States.

To do so would be a dangerous policy of giving the Bush Crime regime "rewards for bad behavior."

[sweetheart]

4. How do you deter americans in advance

Its an interesting military conundrum. Clearly, defeating american
forces with like means is not realistic, but this does not leave out
different means. I think part of it is creating an environment where
the american war-beatles don't have their element. Probably a good way
is to innovate and create a MASSIVE system of border mine fields of all
sorts, that can be left in place and only activated after an invasion
to cut all supply lines. Another way is to make hand held RPG's and
rockets ubiquitous so that no low flying aircraft is safe, as with
iraq, except obviously much more... given how large iran is.

But a must-do, would also be to destroy all bases of operations for
the invaders, so that the american forces have no safe footprint for
invasion. This would probably involved mining the straignt of hormuz
and the sunray missiles launched from covert coastal installations to
wipe out american shipping.

Iran has an airforce as well, which could deliver these packages.
Another consideration, would be to prepare an auxillary force to
invade pakistan and secure their nuclear deterrent. Surely iran could
whoop pakistan and that would leave the combined state of persia quite
strong, as the nukes would then be able to toast US bases round the
space.

But as we've seen in iraq, the best ammunition is to prepare the
population to fight an infinite insurgency against an occupying force
that even were america to gain ground, all flanks would be exposed.

The US does not have the strength of will to defeat iran, or the
strength of budget, truth be told. This seems also true of iraq, and
surely the real strategy of any good iranian general is to make sure
that the american quagmire in iraq keeps the treasury drained and
american soldiers dying regularly that the political will for more
of the same is deterred.

[snippy]

6. Bush is just going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

There will be no invasion. If Iran attempts to retaliate in any way, Bush will bomb additional targets.

[BiggJawn]

8. How about that Iranian Air Force, eh?

Their long-range bombers, their ICBM stocks?

They might give us Hell on the ground, but if they haven't figured out our MO of "shockenawe" from the skies first, march in later....

Brave talk, but that's all it is. PNAC will invade whoever they want to.

And we pay for it, and don't EVEN raise a voice, so long as the Cable Teeee-Veeee stays on.

[SweetLeftFoot]

13. Iranian Air Force doesn't matter

One US/israeli bomb hits American targets and you can expect to see the Shia areas of Iraq make Fallujah look like South Central within hours. Iranian special forces will come over the border too.

[DukeBlue]

22. Tomahawk or B-2, F-117

These would negate their air to air and sam effectiveness. They fly soviet area garbage and use the same integrated air defense systematically destroyed in gw1.

However this is all saber rattling. This was going on a year ago. No action will occur, I'll take bets on that at 20:1...

[snippy]

28. If I was a gambler, I would take that bet.

With all the Neo-cons talking openly of the urgent need to bomb Iran and with Wes Clark saying that there has been lots of discussion in the Pentagon and in Congress about bombing Iran, I just can not see Bush acting rationally. I really will be surprised if Bush does not act sometime this year.

[Laurab]

92. "Bush acting rationally"?

I agree. Not very good odds of that, unfortunately. Slim to none, even. It just remains to be seen if he can fool so many people all of the time.

[leesa]

16. Right. With those there 'precision bombs', eh?

[sweetheart]

21. Lets say you're an iranian military planner

preparing for exactly that. So you create lots of facilities where
you shift your nuclear research (say you have some)... and these are
scattered about the place, like the old "MX" missile system... that
the decoy facilities have to all be hit in order to guarantee a
success.... but the truth in bombing is that there is only partial
success.... and the remaining facilities would certainly then go in to
overtime as the war with america would then become hot, and the gloves
would come off.

Given a no holds barred approach, there is a strong possibility that
iran already has a nuke or two well hidden, and that after such a
hubris strike might retaliate in kind on an american base in quatar
or bahrain or kuwait... a comprehensive nuclear and conventional
strike on the oil ports of saudi arabia and the gulf nations could
cripple the us war machine/economy.

Bush would be a fool to use such means, as the move is telegraphed and
the israeli's already showed the stragegy with that iraqi reactor "os..?".

As well, such a war would surely escalate tensions, as arab nations
come to support iran and not the US in what would surely be a world
war 4, as russia comes in on the side of iran... as indeed, this
hubris is resurrecting the pre-ww2 balance of power, where russia and
the oil-regions stand off against the nazi advance... and when the
nazi army first arrived in stalingrad, it appeared it might be able
to win, much as iraq appeared previously.... and little by little
the hubris was defeated. So the christians can have their armageddon
but hopefully, the bombs will be targetted on the bush-cities like
atlanta, washington, talahassee, mobile, houston and whatnot so that
the criminals who back the nazi's pay the price.

[snippy]

27. "Bush would be a fool to use such means." Exactly.

Hence, bombs away.

[buzzard]

68. But Bush is a fool, so hope his neocons get this. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

83. Then impeachment will have a better chance

[bear425]

32. Tallahasse is NOT a *ush city. It is very blue

Unless your bomb is targetted solely on the Governor's mansion, it will destroy a very blue populace, including my cousin. I also believe that Washington is very Democratic, just not inside the beltway.

[sweetheart]

35. bummer about those capital cities

The bush people hide behind lots of human shields. We all know that
such an attack would surely be on LA, NYC and major centers, just
if they're principaled at all, they'll try a beheading first, which
would surely hope to take off american-saddam and his brother.

[candy331]

138. Yep better hit Jacksonville, a repug stronghold. not funny but none

of this is...

[DoNotRefill]

76. This is not rational on many levels...

First, RPGs work somewhat on low and slow helicopters, but against the rest of the US inventory, they might as well be trying to knock them down with massed urine streams directed into the wind.

Sunburn missiles pose a threat to commercial shipping, NOT the US Navy. Somehow, I don't see a whole lot of Merchies running around during the actual invasion.

Iran's air force realistically would serve only one purpose: target practice for US planes. Even the handful of F-14s they have would be hopelessly outclassed by our (constantly upgraded) F-14s, not to mention other, more modern planes. I also understand that the average Iranian Air Force pilot has very little time in type (unless the russians threw in pilots along with the planes, which I seriously doubt). It wouldn't be a fair fight, it would be clubbing baby seals. We're talking "Marianas Turkey Shoot" proportions here.

Do you REALLY think Pakistan would sit by while Iran invaded them to seize their nukes? Pakistan has been fighting a low-intensity conflict (which is basically a training war) with India for HOW long? And in case you missed it, Pakistan has NUKES. Plus, there's the political aspect to think of...if Iran invaded another muslim country to steal their cheese, they ain't gonna be real popular with the rest of the muslim world, would they? Iran couldn't "whoop" Iraq militarily. They ended up sending unarmed kids as bulletcatchers to distract the Iraqi gunners while the units with guns got closer. What makes you think they could do better against Pakistan???

If Bush were to actually go into Iran, they'd go in, kill everybody who resisted, and leave. What would they have to worry about, that a religious theocracy would take the place of a secular government? Would they worry that the kids would be chanting "Death To America" in the streets? They already really, really, REALLY hate us. And while Iran was putting their house back in order, they would NOT be supporting insurgents in Iraq.

We WILL go into Iran. It's just a matter of when. And just to make your day TRULY cpmplete, I think if Bush did it right, he might talk the Russians into going with us, since they have a very large iron in the fire.

It's not pretty, but it's true.

[TankLV]

91. Only PNAC crowd seriously believes any of what you said.

All it takes is one or 2 nukes. If the US does retaliate - the world will retaliate - AGAINST US!

Don't doubt for a split second that the us could just "go in and kill everyone" Not gonna happen. Ever.

Will get messy - on both sides, before WWIII erupts in earnest AGAINST THE US!

Just the instantaneous creation of MILLIONS to fight a JIHAD against the US IMPERIALISTS alone would be enough to destroy your "rosey" scenerio.

Remember Vietnam - only much larger.

[DoNotRefill]

96. So let me get this straight...

you're saying that if the Iranians used one or two nuclear weapons against US troops and we responded, the rest of the world would intantaneously turn around and nuke the US????

What on earth would make you think that? Do you really think the rest of the world is nuts enough to give Bush the opportunity and reason to nuke them for Jesus? Because you and I and the rest of the world KNOW that he WOULD respond with nukes, and it wouldn't be some kind of "measured response", he'd just flatten anybody who struck first. I think most leaders around the world are NOT suicidal maniacs, and that's EXACTLY what they'd have to be to respond as you suggest.

If Iran was a bastion of pro-western sentiment, then it'd be foolish for us to go in. But it's not, and hasn't been for a very, very long time. And I'm hard-pressed to imagine a post-invasion form of government in Iran that would hate us MORE than the current government does. They're already as anti-American and fundie religious as a government can be.

The purpose of a conventional invasion would not be to occupy the country. It would be to destabilize the country to the point that they can no longer interfere outside their borders, because they are too busy at home.

And I don't see it as a "rosey" scenario, I just know that the Iranians cannot stand against the US military in a conventional manner.

[TankLV]

107. If you believe that anything approaching a nuke strike by bushco on Iran

will be all hunky dory - then you are truly dellusional.

I am not saying that Iran will strike first. I am saying that if Iran were to retalliate agains bushco by the only means they know how, all bets are off. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.

What makes you think that the rest of the world will NOT consider bushco a threat and retaliate and threaten more retaliation if bushco does not accept his punishment?

What makes you so sure that once the nuke genie is unleased that it can be contained, and that the rest of the world will sit by while the bushco nazi blitzkrieg takes on the entire world?

If Iran would do a bushco inspired "pre-emptive" strike, which by bushco's example they would have every right to do, and bunkerboy retalliates, then we aren't just talking nukes anymore. We are talking about striking a hornets nest of angry people who would fan out over the entire world in a jihad agains us! That is a certainty.

Anyone that even for a split second believes what you do is very dangerous.

[DoNotRefill]

115. Pretty simple, actually....

"What makes you think that the rest of the world will NOT consider bushco a threat and retaliate and threaten more retaliation if bushco does not accept his punishment?

What makes you so sure that once the nuke genie is unleased that it can be contained, and that the rest of the world will sit by while the bushco nazi blitzkrieg takes on the entire world?"

The rest of the world knows when a madman has a loaded pistol shoved in the face of the guy next to you with the safety off and his finger taking up the trigger slack, you don't make any sudden moves and jostle his arm, at least if you like the people around you. Do you really think China, Russia, Israel, France, Britain, India, and Pakistan would risk global annihilation for an attack on somebody ELSE? Because that's EXACTLY what we're talking about, and Bush's fundamentalist religious nutjobbery WOULD respond to their attacking us with nuclear weapons with a full-scale retaliatory strike. Remember, the US government can literally annihilate the entire world population in under a year through the effects of nuclear winter if they merely detonated all of their nukes within the boundaries of the US. The US can quite literally kill the planet in a matter of hours. Foreign leaders know this, and I'm HOPING that they are rational enough to NOT want to exterminate the human race.

Remember why we didn't go hog-wild on North Vietnam during that conflict? It was because we were afraid that the Chinese, another nuclear power, would come in, and it would be the end of the world. Currently, we, NOT the chinese, are the nuclear wildcard. Do you think foreign leaders wanted Kerry to be elected because they liked his hair style or his stance on Social Security? Of course not. They wanted Kerry elected simply because Bush is completely, totally nuts, and currently has control of one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet. If the US was nuked, do you think Bush would hesitate for even 30 seconds before ordering a full-scale nuclear strike in return? Remember on the evening of 9/11, when word came that Kabul was under military rocket attack, how the RWers were gloating about how Bush must have launched cruise missiles against them in retaliation for the attacks earlier in the day? It didn't turn out to be true, but that's the mentality we're dealing with here..."shoot first, ask questions later."

[Stand and Fight]

110. Bingo!!!!

You finally got it -- "in a conventional manner." And thus far you have ONLY demonstrated the severe inability to THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. The world is round, and therefore it is necessary to think in 360 degrees. I suppose you don't think that your great president is a suicidal maniac?

[DoNotRefill]

114. heh...

"I suppose you don't think that your great president is a suicidal maniac?"

Actually, I think the REST of the world-leaders are not suicidal maniacs. In order for the scenario described above to take place, they'd have to be.

Look at Libya. They were tweaking our noses at least as far back as Reagan, but basically surrendered because they knew Bush was completely nuts, and they didn't want to be next on the agenda of a madman.

[SOS]

122. Bush had almost nothing

to do with the Libyan decision.

"Libya was moving toward rejoining the international community for the last six, seven years. Its greater cooperation on Lockerbie bombing incident, for example, its outreach to a lot of the European countries to try to get sanctions lifted -- all of this occurred even before George Bush was elected president."

Radio Free Europe article.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/1/77D5F0CE-6527-4A6D-8986-914EC40C22EC.html

[DoNotRefill]

125. Uh huh....

you keep telling yourself that.

[SOS]

127. Uh huh

keep giving Bush credit for the years of European negotiations that led to Libya's decision.
Do you have any links which detail Bush's work toward Libyan disarmament? It would be interesting to contrast those links with these:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php?/franken/old_entry_37/

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_56b.html

Added on edit:
Iraq War did not Force Gaddafi's Hand
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

[DoNotRefill]

130. Dude...

You know Bush is nuts. I know Bush is nuts. Half the American people know Bush is nuts. The Europeans know Bush is nuts. The Turks know Bush is nuts. The Asians know Bush is nuts. The Australians know Bush is nuts. The South Americans know Bush is nuts. The Cubans know Bush is nuts. The Scandinavians know Bush is nuts. The Canadians and Mexicans know Bush is nuts. Even the Zimbabweans and North Koreans know Bush is nuts (and that is, indeed, saying something). So what makes you think the Libyans DON'T know Bush is nuts?!?!?

[NickB79]

135. Why do you say Sunburns pose no threat to US naval ships

They appear to travel too fast to be identified, targeted and shot down by our Phalanx systems before they impact. What other means do we have to shoot them down?

[DoNotRefill]

148. They're relatively short range weapons...

and the entire point of a carrier battle group is to control a considerable area around it. By "control", I mean "nothing can live there if they don't want it to." Having a super-duper De-luxe anti-ship missle that can hit anything no matter what but that only has an 80 km range is worth exactly shit if you can't get it any closer than 100km.

[MHalblaub]

153. Ever heart of the Straight of Hormuz? NT

[DoNotRefill]

158. there's no way in hell they'd try to put carriers....

through there during a war with Iran. Remember, the carrier doesn't actually have to be present to project power. The area in question just has to be within the range of the air wing. And you wouldn't BELIEVE how far they can get the air wing to strike if they really want to. This is why China is so desperatly trying to figure out naval aviation, to the point that they bought an old mothballed Soviet carrier to reverse-engineer.

If for some tactical reason they needed to go through the Strait of Hormuz, I'm sure they'd send, say, a MEF through to hold the East bank, or else they'd simply pulverize any place that might pose a danger. Remember, we're not talking a shoulder-fired rig here...there's a fair bit of bulk to one of those things.

[MHalblaub]

160. How you'll support the troops in Iraq?

Big airlift!
Great option for one week. But in the following weeks the Iranian will probably have some missles around the airfields.
Oh, yes I forget the secure highways through Saudi Arabia or Joran.

Go for that. Osama will bow ten times more to Mecca and prais 'Allah u Akbar' for sending the US such a great leader for a second term.

The last question is: did they have the big one?

[leftyandproud]

5. well, we'll show them..

now we have something to prove don't we?

[Supersedeas]

41. Iranian version of "BRING IT ON" -- strange medicine for the Frat Boy

[rooboy]

7. An indication of what he might be talking about here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x98888

[WritersBlock]

19. Thank you - that article scared the hell out of me.

I'd read it before, and just spent the past 15 minutes looking for my bookmark and googling for it. (I should have known that DU would have it.)

I guess I'm just pretty damn naive. But I just don't understand how someone who professes to be doing everything to "protect" a country can continue on a course of action that appears to be hell-bent on achieving exactly the opposite outcome.

[leftchick]

39. omg.....

:wow:

~snip~

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

[yinkaafrica]

44. That Sunburn is really something

I wonder how many of those Iran has in inventory.
That and the Iskander could shock and awe the neighborhood
once the party starts. You can bet that if Russia is selling
the Iskander to Syria, Iran already has them.
When US soldiers are being burned up by the
thousands how will the US react?

[DukeBlue]

61. I'm sure

Russia is happy to take their money. The integrated defense grid they sold Iraq prior to GW1 was state of the art. Didn't work that well. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.

As I think back and remember how many times this story has been on the times over the last 20 years I raise my odds of a non event to 40:1.

[yinkaafrica]

64. I think you are wrong

Whatever it takes, Bush will invade Iran.
I think Iran is ready for us.

[The Zanti Regent]

10. Iran will fight back

If Israel is stupid enough to bomb Iranian reactors, what will the Likudniks do when Iran responds with nukes on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?

That sure is gonna throw a monkey wrench into Tim La Haye's Left Behind scenario!

[leesa]

17. Terrible, but maybe that would be the only thing to wake the Foolish Fundi

[DukeBlue]

25. They

will launch a 200 bomb counter response. That is about 75 to 100 mt total yield. That would kill every major population center in Iran and leave it crippled with no communication, air defense, or means to react to any military situation.

They would probably roll out any chem/bio stock they have as well poring anthrax, botulism, and other nasties into a country that has just been hit with a massive nuclear hit would cause huge casualties.

But this is all speculation. (Not endorsing the above, FYI)

[Nihil]

30. Welcome to DU "Duke"

> That would kill every major population center in Iran and leave it
> crippled with no communication, air defense, or means to react to any
> military situation.
>
> They would probably roll out any chem/bio stock they have as well
> poring anthrax, botulism, and other nasties into a country that has
> just been hit with a massive nuclear hit would cause huge casualties.

And to think that people claim Israel is a peaceful nation with armed
forces only for defence ... WMDs a plenty over *there* ... probably
the highest concentration of WMDs in the world when taken on either
a per capita or per square mile basis ... <sigh>

I don't think many people would weep for the death of a regime that
released bio weapons on a civilian population. (Would anyone weep
for Bush? And he was only responsible for a few isolated cases of
anthrax ...)

(Also "not endorsing the above, FYI" :eyes:)

[bobbyboucher]

47. Oh gawd, we got another!

Are you a plastic toy army man? Did you lose your way and fall out of the sandbox?

[DukeBlue]

49. Do you have

something to say or are you just taking time out to respond to me? If so you did a wonderful job. of saying nothing

Does your momma know your on the PC, its the Debil!

[BUSHOUT]

54. By "they" you mean Israel?

Your title is a little confusing considering the post you're responding to, but from the content it's obvious you mean Israel.

I hope George Bush does continue with his idiotic foreign policy behavior...more of the same...and swagger/BS us into war with Iran. Then when millions of Israelies are dead or dying all of us who didn't vote for that idiot can say we told ya so.

[DukeBlue]

58. They meaning Israel

yes..

I don't think Iran is going to do anything and neither will we. Israel may hit them but they have a real deterrent, a nuclear arsenal.

Our response to a nuclear attack would be on the order of thousands of weapons and hundreds if not thousands of megatons of bombs. Is this possible, yes. Probable, no way.

More dick swinging from DC and the Mullahcrats..

In the event of a nuclear war my last thought would be "I told you so". No one deserves it.

[Laurab]

94. No, no, please - no death and destruction

just to say "I told you so". What I would like to see is a rethug only draft - after all, they should be the ones to sign up - this IS what they voted for. If so many people like *, why is the military having such a hard time getting people to sign up? Time to put your lives where your vote is I say.

[NickB79]

66. If Israel launched 200 nuclear warheads at Iran

Stock up on firewood, canned food and longjohns. That many megatons of nuclear yield detonated at once is enough to significantly alter the global climate, including the climate over the US. Then there's the radioactive fallout spread by the prevailing winds, not just around the Middle East but also across the globe. I'm sure Israel would be thrilled to see their entire country poisoned and uninhabitable, as well as see many countries die around them as well.

What military brilliance. Releasing that many nukes would be enough for a small nuclear winter scenario to occur for several years, reducing crop yields across the world and resulting in widespread famine. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if Russia or China nuked them for revenge after millions of their citizens died.

[0007]

11. The analogy is like the Three Stooges taking to Laurel & Hardy

except that it isn't funny.

[sarcasmo]

12. If an Iran attack happens expect gas to be over $3.00 a gallon

Chimpy just doesn't see the problems he creates on the home front. IF we invade Iran not only will the price of gas go up their will need to be a draft. Being in the White House gives you immunity to the problems of the regular Joe/Jane. These idiots are trying to make their bible mythology become reality.

[TyeDye75]

31. Wow..

A few more wars and you might have to pay as much for it as we do in the UK

[PROGRESSIVE1]

38. More like $4.00!

[tedzbear]

51. ExxonMobil will love our invasion of Iran.

If they can sell us $4.00 gas they will be in heaven. Hurry up an buy oil stocks before the chimp sends in the bombers! The profit margin for our oil companies will be HUGE!

[NYC]

48. That's good for the sellers.

So how is that a problem to Bush?

[AG78]

14. That's it, dare the neocons

I think they would like someone fighting back. They want war. They love the game of war. Not that these guys need someone to come right out and dare them, but come on Iran, keep it up.

[leesa]

18. It's worked for Korea.

[underpants]

20. Hey Iranians I have been observing the neo-cons, some advice....

sssssssssshhhhhhhh!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. My question

Does the UN consider Iran to be in violation of anything at the moment? Is there any kind of UN-approved sanctions in place right now?

If not, attacking Iran will go down about as well as attacking France.

[Oversea Visitor]

59. No UN sanction

Only sanction is by US. However Haliburton is haha trading with Iraq.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

26. I'm to the point

that I almost wish * would attack Iran. Let's have the hecatomb happen, let the Shiites in Iraq turn on us, let's needlessly slaughter more innocents, let's finish alienating everyone on Earth, let's send our soldiers to another hopeless deathtrap, let's totally bankrupt the nation for eternity, so we can hang these murderous bastards from lampposts ASAP.

[Redstone]

29. Iran's air force capability

This is their fighter/strike aircraft inventory. I doubt we could get them all right away, and it only takes one missile to sink a ship...

Chengdu F-7N (MiG-21) - 14 - probable operational: 10
Grumman F-14A - 20 - probable operational: 5
Guizhou FT-7 (MiG-21U) - 4 - probable operational: 4
MDD F-4D/E - 40 - probable operational: 15
MDD RF-4E - 6 - probable operational: 3
Mikoyan MiG-29A - 35 - probable operational: 30
Mikoyan MiG-29UB - 5 - probable operational: 5
Northrop F-5B/E/F - 45 - probable operational: 30
Shenyang F-6 (MiG-19) - 18 - probable operational: 15
Sukhoi SU-20 - 4 - probable operational: 0
Sukhoi SU-22 - 40 - probable operational: 20
Sukhoi SU-24MK - 40 - probable operational: 35

Total of probable operational fighter/strike A/C: 172

Think they've been building remote fields and revetments for these airplanes scattered around the desert? Bet they have; some of the Russian planes (particularly the SU-24) can operate from very rough fields.

Just something for us to think about. And you can bet your butt if we attack Iran, their air force won't run across the border like the Iraqi AF in Gulf War 1.

Redstone

[IranianDemocrat]

84. that list is not accurate.

According to acig.org the list is more like this:

Iran has been reverse engineering to get spare parts for most of its American planes.

F-4D: 7 active and 8 stored
- F-4E: 44 active and 27 stored
- RF-4C/E: 6 active and 2 stored
- F-5A: approximately 20 used for training (6 converted to Simourq)
- F-5E: 51 active and 15 stored
- F-5F: unknown
- F-14A: 28 active and 29 stored
- F-7: 14 single siters & 4 trainers
- P-3: AFAIK we had 5 not 3
- 34 MiG-29
- 23 Su-24MK
- 23 Mirage F.1EQ/BQ
- 7 Su-25 (IRGC)
-Adnan 2 (one being modified)

[Redstone]

99. If your list is more accurate than mine

and it may very well be (my list come from, well, somewhere that's not on the Internet), it still illustrates my point.

Let's say we take your list and mine, and average the numbers. That might be more accurate than either list alone.

It still represents a reasonably potent force, especially with the SU-24s, which are pretty bad-ass strike A/C and hard to shoot down. And let's not forget that F-5s routinely beat more modern planes in training dogfights (they have short legs, but are hard to see).

Not that I'm saying they could stand up to US forces for very long, but if they did decide to fight (and they would), it wouldn't be like Iraq.

Redstone

[IranianDemocrat]

111. Exactly..

A war with Iran will be disaster for everyone.

[David__77]

33. The lesson for Iran from the Iraq war is to build up a strong military.

The lesson of Iraq for the world is that ONLY powerful military forces can deter aggression. Weakness, for whatever reason, will not obtain peace. Only power can maintain peace. It is true.

Iran would be foolish to allow a US buildup to proceed for months as occurred in Iraq. They would be smarter to launch pre-emptive attacks on the neighboring areas, utilizing their best missiles.

[Redstone]

34. That's right.

Any question whatever that they're smart enough to be planning to hit our troops in Iraq at the first provocation? I can't see the Iranians being particularly concerned about killing a bunch of Iraqis along with as many Americans as they can get, so they'll just lob as many missiles they can at places in Iraq where we have a lot of soldiers.

Are our troops being prepared for this possibility? I doubt it.

Redstone

[daleo]

40. That's what Reagan used to say too.

Hope for peace, but prepare for war. Something like that. It is interesting that PNAC (or pre-PNAC) strategy seems to be the only thing that works against PNAC.

[deminflorida]

36. Iran to Bush, We have a Bomb.... We may not have a vehicle to

deliver it to Israel or Iraq yet, but we have a bomb.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

[deminflorida]

46. I stand corrected...

"Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts."



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633

[DukeBlue]

50. London and Paris

Are NATO members and that would trigger a full scale nuclear war. Both have significant nuclear arsenals, including Subs. The French said "we are prepared to use nuclear weapons" verbatim. That is serious, I can't remember any time since the cold war when a US Sec Def said we will use nukes in a public forum.

Iran is saber rattling. I can't search threads but if I could I bet there are 20 just like this one. Iran is always in the news with these statements. I had 20:1 odds this is BS and nothing changes. Only one taker..

[BUSHOUT]

55. Saber rattling? What do you think Bush is doing? He's an idiot and so is

anyone else who thinks he can mount something against Iran.

Iran wouldn't need to rattle it's sabers if it wasn't for that fucking moron. Anyone who voted for him is an idiot. He's absolutely useless on the international scene but that doesn't stop him from trying! One day he tells a reporter he's going to try and be more diplomatic and the next he's exchanging threats with Iran.

What a total failure as a man and a leader.

[DukeBlue]

60. You may not remember or

may not have been born yet but Iran was doing the same thing when Carter was in office.

This is such a repeated story. It is in the NYT at least once a month.

Yes bush is dumb but Iran has been nutty for a good 20 years.

[BUSHOUT]

62. Remind me....did we think Iran had nukes then?

Were we trying to get them to give up thier nukes then?

And by "same thing", do you mean Carter was making implicit threats against them and Iran was responding with tough talk? Was Carter as big an idiot as Bush?

[tedzbear]

56. You were right the first time.

One or two of these long range missiles will have nukes. And god knows our star wars defense can't shoot down a can of beans.

To me, "the greatest deterrent" can mean only one thing: a nuke.

It's a win-win for the chimp. Once Iran goes ballistic, his oil buddies will get super rich selling $5.00 a gallon gas, AND the dividends they pay won't be taxed!

Even better, the whole country will get behind the chimp once WW III starts and Tel Aviv gets nuked by Iran. The American public is notoriously loyal in times of big wars, right or wrong.

The Big Question is: will Iran actually use a nuke if we bomb them? Or will they save the planet and keep their nukes under wraps until next time? I am hoping they will keep a level head even while under attack and wait for the chimp or Sharon to use nukes first. They know they can cause pain in other ways...why use nukes first when it would only get them bad press? They will do much better sealing off the Persian Gulf and getting Sistani to declare a jihad against America.

[plasticsundance]

42. This is what was said about Iran in 1996

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/06/iran.threat/

The reason: Unless the United States neutralized Iran in a large-scale attack, Iran's military could effectively block off the mouth of the Gulf, trapping U.S. warships inside.

In the past two years, Iran has obtained two Russian kilo-class diesel submarines, and a third is to be delivered in a month or two. Iran also has taken delivery of 10 Chinese fast-attack boats equipped with C802 anti-ship missiles with a 60-mile range.

... As one senior officer explained, "Unlike Iraq and Libya, the United States can't just whack Iran and walk away."

[mitchtv]

43. Iran has said "if they are attacked by the US.."

the Gulf States hosting US would be attacked immediately. How much a gallon?

[yinkaafrica]

45. I hadn't heard about that

I'm guessing five dollars (Bush will add a buck for his
own little bastard self).

[CoffeeCat]

65. This is outrageously distressing...

If all of us can understand the grave threats hanging over our country--with respect to Iran--there's no doubt that the PNACers understand.

What do the PNACers and Bush have to say about the Sunburn missile?

Obviously, they can scenario this out--just as the article does. The US Military understands that our ships in the Gulf could be sitting ducks if Iran has hundreds of these Sunburn missiles.

Would they be so stupid as to walk into a deathtrap--that even all of us can foresee?

I just get this sinking feeling that they're all completely mental. They understand the ramifications and they look forward to ramming the world into WW3.

Is that what we have here...a bunch of twisted, evil, nut cases who want war--for fun, adrenaline and power?

I think I'm gonna be sick...

[Strelnikov_]

85. The Strait Of Hormuz Is The Mother Of All World Oil Transit Chokepoints

World Oil Transit Chokepoints

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/choke.html

Strait Of Hormuz

Oil Flows: 15-15.5 million bbl/d (~20% of worldwide production)

"By far the world's most important oil chokepoint, the Strait consists of 2-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a 2-mile wide buffer zone. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require use of longer alternate routes (if available) at increased transportation costs. Such routes include the 5 million-bbl/d capacity Petroline (East-West Pipeline) and the 290,000-bbl/d Abqaiq-Yanbu natural gas liquids line across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea. Theoretically, the 1.65-million bbl/d Iraqi Pipeline across Saudi Arabia (IPSA) also could be utilized, more oil could be pumped north to Ceyhan (Turkey), and the 0.5 million-bbl/d Tapline to Lebanon could be reactivated."

[Oreo]

102. A couple sunken tankers

right in the middle of the straight would shut it down for along time I would think. How deep is it?

I would bet the alternate pipelines would be prime targets once the straight was shutdown.

[Guns Aximbo]

52. Them r fightin werds...

said bush.

[newscott]

57. Does this mean Baghdad Bob has a new job? n/t

[kineneb]

67. We could attack...but

It wouldn't get us very far. I have made this list in other comments about Iran (and, yes, I have lived there, I was even a dual citizen, and have family there).

1. large percentage of population under age 25
2. difficult terrain- most of country is above 4000' elevation, lots of really rugged mountains, big deserts
3. history of being a "Real Country" for over 2500 years...not just a bunch of tribes with flags as in most of the Middle East
4. population is patriotic about country, not government...they may hate the mullahs, but don't even think of invading the country
5. Sunburn missiles...ugly and efficent, if we attack, they will use them

So, as a "realist" I think the idea is stupid. But the NeoCons are living in their own fantasy world and going into Iran has been in their plans for some time. I am afraid we are going into WWIII. I just hope my family there will go somewhere safe.
:cry:

[Oilwellian]

69. War-Gaming the Mullahs

Sept. 27 issue - Unprepared as anyone is for a showdown with Iran, the threat seems to keep growing. Many defense experts in Israel, the United States and elsewhere believe that Tehran has been taking advantage of loopholes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology. They can't prove it, of course, and Iran's leaders deny any intention of developing the bomb. Nevertheless, last week U.S. and Israeli officials were talking of possible military action—even though some believe it's already too late to keep Iran from going nuclear (if it chooses). "We have to start accepting that Iran will probably have the bomb," says one senior Israeli source. There's only one solution, he says: "Look at ways to make sure it's not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger."


After the Iraq debacle, calls for regime change without substantial evidence of weapons of mass destruction are not likely to gain a lot of traction. But if the allegations are correct, Iran is only one of the countries whose secret nuclear programs hummed along while America waged a single-minded hunt for WMD in Iraq. Another is North Korea, which hasn't stopped claiming that it's turning a stockpile of spent fuel rods into a doomsday arsenal. And arms-control specialists are increasingly alarmed by Brazil's efforts to do precisely what Iran is doing: use centrifuge cascades to enrich uranium—with a couple of key differences. Unlike Iran, Brazil has never signed the NPT's Additional Protocol, which gives expanded inspection rights to the International Atomic Energy Agency. And unlike Iran, Brazil is not letting the IAEA examine its centrifuges. If the Brazilians go through with their program, it's likely to wreck the landmark 1967 treaty that made South America a nuclear-free zone. But the White House has shown scant concern about the risk.

(snip)
But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. "The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable," says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. "The question is, what then?" NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek

[LibertyorDeath]

71. What a bunch of fucking morans

"The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

[RockStar]

70. Sorry IRAN you will just become another statistic! The USA is to powerful

to be stopped and controlled. Welcome to the Jungle

[Deja Q]

140. What, with our deficit spending, big debt, and stretched troops?!

How much more can things be pushed?

Or are nukes not out of the question, officially?

[jfern]

72. Someone should tell Iran that Bush is crazy

and that he might attack anyways

[ausiedownunderground]

73. I think if the US attacks IRAN - You'll be on your own!

The US doesn't need to attack Iran. This is the only country in the Middle East that still has some respect for the US. If "The Bush Gang" really wants something in Iran then a "Velvet" or "Orange" type revolution strategy is by far the best method to adopt. If the Neo-cons can't wait then it could get very "ugly". Do the Iranians have the advanced Russian missile technology? How will Hezbollah react? What will the Badr Brigades in Iraq do? Does Iran have nuclear capability? WHAT TYPE OF INTEL ARE THE NEO CONS LISTENING TO THIS TIME? IF ITS THE WOLFOWITZ FEITH TYPE OF INTEL THEN GOD HELP US!

[robbo2356]

74. Has the ideal nuclear deterrents been forgotten?

[American Tragedy]

79. Sounds frighteningly like famous last words.

May all go well...

[arwalden]

86. Hitler Had Poland... Bush Has Iran.

Bush* believes he has a "destiny" and therefore he also believes that NOTHING he does is wrong. He believes that if he thinks of something, it was placed there by a deity to fulfill his destiny.

[MHalblaub]

154. Hitler believes in his "Vorsehung". NT

[IranianDemocrat]

87. In the Iran Iraq war the Iranian Airforce kill ratio was 5:1.

2 Iranian f-14's would sometimes engage dozens of Iraqi migs and come out as the victors. Eventually saddam ordered none of his aircraft to engage Iranian f-14's. The thing about us Iranians is that we are a very nationalistic people. There is no way in the world anyone would let their country be invaded militarily. After the revolution, we didn't even have a real military, and we defended our selves from being invaded by an army supplied by the entire western world. Whenever Iraq lost a tank or aircraft they would get it replaced by the United States, while we relied entirely on one perishable inventory.

The United States better think long and hard before attacking Iran. The US has 150,000 troops in Iraq which is still not enough, while Iran has a standing army of 2.34 million. Iran has the largest ballistic missile inventory in the middle east along with locally proiducing the U.S. cobra attack helicopter, and the ability to cripple the world economy by closing down the strait of Hormuz. Iran will not be like Iraq or Afghanistan. Mark my words.

[kineneb]

88. I so agree.

Having lived in Iran and still having family there, you are so right. Americans do not understand that Persia has had real governments for 2500 years. It has a wonderful ancient culture and is very nationalistic because of that history.

Incidently, hi, and glad to see that not all expats are Repugs. Too many of my family here are blinded by the right.

[cal04]

93. Iran Dismisses 'Stupid' U.S. Strike Threat

Iran’s Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesisaid: “The Americans are stupid, but not so much to make the same mistake which they made in Tabas,” referring to a failed US military operation in 1980 to rescue hostages held in Iran, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

IRNA quoted Yunesi as claiming that US planes had been detected over Iran as “part of the espionage which they carry out” and warned that “every action has a reaction.” He added that the planes were “nothing new.” Yunesi also said US commandos had not entered Iran for reconnaissance missions. “We are eagerly looking for the Americans commandos to come to Iran since they are chicks which would rapidly be picked up by our eagles,” he said, according to IRNA.

Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice made clear that American differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program, saying that it was “really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi responded yesterday, saying that Iran “has always said that Tel Aviv decides US policies and that the Zionist lobby is very powerful in the United States.”

Asefi said top US administration officials did not find any friends around the world when they issued threats suggesting that they may be considering military action against Iran.



http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4038568

[Imagevision]

101. The US. delivered 500 bunker-busting bombs to Israel in 10-04

[Rapcw]

106. why bait the beast Iran?

That's what they want you to do

[bunny planet]

128. Iran is being protected by China and Russia from what I've read.

They've already cut oil deals with them and will protect their investments.

Attacking Iran will be so wrong on so many levels, but hey, that's never stopped the crazy neo-cons before.

[superconnected]

137. are you guys sure this isn't about defense contracts

Carlyle holds many defense subsidaries, including united defense.
Haliburton is defense.

The republicans are known for investing in defense and the defense sector is doing the best in the market.

Does bush really care if we win/lose a war. Or is it about corporate contracts - how the bush family made their money in the first place.

It's not _all_ about oil.

I don't trust bushco because they don't care that we don't have the money or troops for these wars, they jump in them anyway - because of profiteering. They don't have open contract bids. Why would they stop a major financial gain for defense simply on the grounds we would lose the war.

They never cared about america and the people. They've shown they are willing to take our lives and our money. It think this is only about more profiteering.

[MHalblaub]

155. I hate the euphemism 'defense'. Please use 'military' instead.

[Deja Q]

139. Am I hearing 'bring it on'?

This should be fun to watch. Where's the popcorn? And radiation flare shield?!

[bush_is_wacko]

142. Unfortunately they CAN attack them, but it isn't very smart to do it!

Of course Mr. President isn't very smart is he? THIS is the REAL threat. If he does it, we're on DEE, DEEP doo-do-! Actually, I think we may already be in it! My guess is the Iraqi's will probably be getting help from these folks REAL soon!:nuke:

[schrodingers_cat]

145. Just a thought.....

is it possible that Bushdick and Friends are holding so strongly to the January 30 vote deadline for Iraq because they foresee other uses for an army that is already conveniently situated in the 'neighborhood'? I haven't seen any projections of what will take place after the election in Iraq - the MSM can't seem to see beyond that date either. However, Bushdick and Friends have already warred to 'Democratize' 2 middle Eastern countries thus far.....

[Gyre]

146. Playing chicken w/ the US is not a winning strategy usually.

On the other hand, the implied threat is that they could vaporize Israel or an American concentration in Iraq, or at least a part of either. Can anybody here think of a more sacred cow of this administration that Israel? "Unsure" is the key word to describe the US intelligence quality re: Iran.

One thing's for sure. If they didn't rattle their own sabre, however long or short it might be, they'd be wide open to US missle attack with no troop involvement.

Gyre

[Pachamama]

149. I believe them....and I don't want to find out whether they can indeed or

not....

I believe if this psycho-war-hungry administration tries to attack Iran they will be unleashing a global war on a scale unimaginable...

:nuke:

[Tiberius]

150. Iran warns of "astonishing" retaliation if attacked

Iran warned it will carry out an "astonishing" retaliation if attacked by Israel or the United States, a top Revolutionary Guards commander has been quoted Wednesday by Shargh newspaper as saying.

"We will counter any stupid action by Israel and its master with firmness and in an astonishing way," Brigadier-General Mohammad-Ali Jafari told the paper.

The commander of the Revolutionary Guards' ground forces noted that Iran now has the capability to defeat any enemy if it came under attack.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6868

[bemildred]

151. Bad translation ... nt

[happyslug]

159. Reminds me of the story of the First Computer Language Translators.

In the 1950s the US tried to develop a computer to Translate Russian into English. In a seminar such a computer was demonstrated by Translating an English text into Russian and than back into English. An amazing feat for the 1950s, except the text kept referring to "Water Sheep". No one knew what was a "Water-Sheep" till after reading for a few pages people realized "Water-Sheep" should have been translated as "Hydraulic Rams". Similar "Mis-translations" of similar sounding terms are the most common form of mis-translation. These types of errors occurred so often that it was decided a human translator was cheaper than using the Computer and than having the text edited by someone in the field.

The same with this term "Astounding" probably should have been translated as "surprising" or maybe even "large".

My Favorite story of a Mis-translation occurred about 1967. The US and the USSR were negotiating an arms control agreement. The translator was a Russian (For more Russians knew English than American Knew Russian). This is often a mistake for it is easier to translate into one's own language than into a language that is NOT your native tongue. As a native you know all of the little ins and out of various words and not only their clear meaning but any implications of the use of those words. This is especially true of "Phases" used by a lot of people. Such common sayings have specific meanings within a society but rarely translate well.

Anyway in the 1967 Arms Control Meeting, the Russian team leader used a Russian term about a bad Potato will make the rest of the bag of Potato goes bad (When referring to what the American were asking for verification of the Arms Control Agreement). The Saying had no exact American Equivalent so the Russian Translated to the nearest such saying he new of from America "A N-gger in the Wood Pile". The American team Leader was black and the whole American Team stood up and walked out in protest. The Russians did not know why. It took about 30 minutes for both sides to realize the problem was one of Translation not Insult.

That appears to be the problem here, the Translator is NOT a native English speaker and took some Farsi word and translated it into what he or she believed to be the nearest English equivalent. A close match but do NOT include any of the Implication of the Word used in trying to understand what the Speaker was trying to convey.

[Theres-a]

152. "Israel and it's master"? Shouldn't that be the other way around?