Iran promises harsh response to foreign attack ("killing field")

[sabra]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iran-promises-harsh-response-to-foreign-attack/2006/03/07/1141493619371.html

Iran promises harsh response to foreign attack

Iran vowed today to be a "killing field" for any attackers after the United States warned of "painful consequences" if it failed to curb its atomic plans.

US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said yesterday his country had been "beefing up defensive measures" to thwart Iran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is a quest for atomic bombs, not just nuclear-generated electricity.

Gholamali Rashid, deputy head of the armed forces, said the United States did not understand to operate in the Gulf region.

"Iran's armed forces, through their experience of war ... will turn this land into a killing field for any enemy aggressors," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.

[RufusEarl]

1. Is this the drum beat for war?

sure sounds like it to me.

[sabra]

2. indeed. Bolton is trying to play a game of chicken....

[IndianaGreen]

13. Let's get it over with!

Let these fools go to war against Iran, and watch them lose the entire Middle East in the process.

Who knows? Perhaps this war will be Bush's Waterloo!

[TexasLawyer]

20. No! These fools are wasting OUR blood and treasure

We can't let this go forward. Attacking Iran would be absolute madness!

[IndianaGreen]

24. I want the Empire to die!

It is the only way to get our Republic back, by letting the Empire die!

If they are so arrogant to think that they can win a 3-front war through military might, let them ride into Little Bighorn, and let the gods render their judgment.

[WhiteTara]

27. Impeach George Bush!

Send them all to the Hague. No more killing of innocents.

[JuniorPlankton]

3. "Iran's armed forces, through their experience of war "

You mean their war with Iraq, right?
If the side (Iraq) is any indication of the experience of that war...
Remember Baghdad Bob?


You can posture all you want, but the US will easily take that army out.
(That is if it weren't tied up in Iraq)
The issue is not whether or not we can, but whether or not we should.
And if we have not learned anything from the recent experience; we (as a nation) are as dumb as our current leaders.

:kick:

[Village Idiot]

5. Three words: Massive Arial Bombardment.

The US just doesn't have the troops or the international support to spend on a war with Iraq. They will bomb MASSIVELY and INDISCRIMINENTLY, as is their wont. With DU, WP, and other nastiness (again, as is their wont)...

They could not ever win a ground war in Iran unless this occurs, and even THEN, I have GRAVE doubts. If you think that Iraq - a hitherto secular nation - has mustered a great many Islamic suicide bombers, just wait until you see how many suicide SQUADS/BRIGADES a bona fide Islamic Theocracy can mobilize. Remember that there are reportedly around 250,000 Pasdaran (Republican Guard) FANATICS and a standing ground army approaching half a million. They ALSO have an AIR FORCE, courtesy of the Russians, comprised of MIG-27s and apparently the newest MIG-31s, which the Iraqis did not have. They also have sophisticated Chinese MOBILE ground launched missile batteries capable of targeting up to 48 targets INDIVIDUALLY, and a brand spanking new NAVY made up of MISSILE FRIGATES and the like...

One word: SHITSTORM.

Remember - the USA is the only nation paranoid and batshit-crazy enough to have actually USED nuclear armaments against other nations - unnecesarily, I might add.

[atreides1]

6. You forgot the Sunburn anti-ship missiles

There are two models and the good one can actually be programmed to take out a specific type of ship.

[Pavulon]

8. We Used

this system as a drone for weapon testing. Project was co-developed between a us defense contractor and russian firm.

It is very popular with rense and the la times. Jane's not so much.

[Pavulon]

10. The Emperor of japan

and any man who was in the pacific time at the time would disagree.

[radwriter0555]

16. Excuse me, why should the USA attack Iran at all? The point is to dismiss

all US endeavors to invade and destroy Iran.

It's just stupid and based on nothing but profiteering and conquest.

[Strelnikov_]

12. "Never, Never, Never Believe Any War Will Be Smooth . . .

and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

- Sir Winston Churchill

Think 20% of the worlds oil supply off line for years. Think US troops fighting well supplied irregulars amongst the urban population of Iraq. Think a general Shia uprising, most of whom live in the oil producing regions around the gulf.

In other words, think asymmetric warfare.

The risk from intervention far outweighs the risk from no action.

[Jamison]

23. That's for certain.

Hitler thought he would have complete control of the Soviet Union by October of 1941. Boy was he wrong.

[IndianaGreen]

14. In case you haven't taken notice, we lost the war in Iraq and...

we are about to lose in Afghanistan as well.

[sarcasmo]

17. It isn't if we will take Iran out, it's who will get blown up in the

process. Israel? is in the middle of that mess and those bunch of vultures are waiting for this reason to destroy Israel. Syria, Iran, Hamas with Russia supplying all of them arms to make it happen. The bombing of Iran will be this Presidents, finish. Sure we will win, but at what expense. Kick and Nom for the sure STUPIDITY of our boy King.

[FloridaPat]

4. I can't believe the MSM & the sheeple are going through this

same script again as if it's real.

[teryang]

7. If US threats are just bluster and bluff, it isn't working

A decline in American hegemony or an expansion of it, involve revolutionary change. The Iranian regime is committed to its sovereignty and pushing American influence out of the region. In order to protect the revolution in Iran, it cannot back down. If this takes twenty years I don't think that Iran or Russia have a problem with it. Iranians die, Russians profit, Americans go broke.

The risk isn't that the US won't be able to defeat Iranian troops on the battlefield. They just won't be able to achieve anything resembling a political victory or consolidation of actual control over Iranian territory (Get ready for mission accomplished Part II). The risk is that the costs imposed on the US and the infrastructure supporting our hegemony will be unacceptable from a cost benefit analysis. I think without having to describe the mechanism, likely Iranian targets will be the moribund aristocracies on the western gulf shores, the US financial center so favors. This is a war like that in Iraq that will not end in the foreseeable future, until we throw the bums out. This is difficult to do during an actual war and may be impossible with the election rigging and police state apparratus established in the US.

I could see the aristocracies on the Saudi peninsula collapsing as a result of this war policy by the US. This may in fact be part of the plan. I assumed that securing control of Saudi Arabia was the objective since they forced our military out and placed American oil companies into the novel role of suitors for Saudi resources.

[cliss]

11. Interesting notion.

I agree: I really don't believe the US could accomplish any sort of "winnable" war in Iran. And that's not for lack of trying! I'm sure that in their arrogance, they feel that we could somehow prevail. But there are probably a few generals left in the gutted Pentagon who know better.

The risk with attacking Iran, is that while the prize is enormous, so are the risks. If the US drops bombs on Teheran, any number of things can happen, all bad. The Iranians are on the defensive right now, and I'm sure they have made dozens of contingency plans if the first bombs fall. We do not have the people-power to walk in there and "take" it after we break it, so it would be more like a "hit and run" deal where we try to cripple the country and hope they can't retaliate. A true pipe dream.

There is something definitely going on with Iran. Almost a maniacal obsession from Washington. It could be the Euro Bourse, but it could also be that Iran is the only oil country which sticks its middle finger in Bush's face. Think about it. All the rest are puppet regimes.
*************
As far as Saudi Arabia, I believe you are right. These 'kingdoms' are teetering on the edge. They have a huge unemployment and a lot of young people (median age = <25 yrs.). It's a puppet regime, as well. If SA falls, the entire ME could collapse into a civil war.

But I'm not sure why the US would attempt it. Any sort of breakdown would threaten the oil refineries, and SA has the biggest ones. It would be suicide.

Any ideas?

[teryang]

18. Why the "neo con" elitists would attempt it

1. Their continued rule is in jeopardy. They support radical belligerence for the same reason German financial elites supported Hitler, they felt threatened by emerging world powers and went for broke. Exigencies abroad supported police state terrorism at home. Economics at the point of a gun.

2. For the oil. Inability to exploit Iraqi oil today conserves reserves for future Anglo-American exploitation. Saudi Arabia has asserted sovereignty over its oil and energy resources. This is unacceptable to Exxon/Mobil. Converting Iraqi and then Iranian energy markets to American control is a slight of hand strategy. If warfare dislocates markets, raises prices, and impedes production, it is likely to expedite rather than impede the takeover and ultimate exploitation of Saudi peninsula resources.

3. Fletcher Prouty once claimed that Eisenhower told him that the purpose of American middle east strategy was to obstruct the flow of oil to economic rivals. Whether the story is true or not, there is an element of truth to the policy.

[daleo]

9. Bush can't even steal Iraq's oil

How can an air war manage to steal Iran's oil?

[radwriter0555]

15. Uh what SHOULD they promise? To roll over and be conquered? What the FUCK

do you expect then to say and do when provoked and attacked? You want them to be like the Iraqis?

Forget it, Iran is ARMED.

Fuck with them for NO REASON other than profits and conquest and expect bloody hell.

[BushSpeak]

19. They can always fan the flames in Iraq

Can you imagine how unconfortable things could get for the US, if there is a Chiite uprising in the south as well.

[BushSpeak]

21. Is anybody aware that an Oil Stock Market in euros is opening

in Teheran on the 22nd of march?

This could be very threatening to the position of the dollar and the repercussions on the American economy and possibly the pressing reason for precipitated action.

I've seen several articles to that effect.

Saddam switched to the euro in Nov. 2000 and started a movement among other oil producing nations to sell in euros. This was mentionned as one of the hidden reasons for the war.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Yes, I bet a beer to my boss that the war will be on by April's Fools

This has everything to do with the Iranian burse, and nothing to do with fictitious WMDs.

[BushSpeak]

22. Duplicate post - self deleted

[Clarkie1]

26. It will be a massive bombing campaign, not a land invasion. n/t