We WILL Invade Iran, and very soon. These fuckers are out of control.

[franksumatra]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/272150p-233046c.html

According to the reports, our military IS ALREADY IN IRAN scoping out nuke facilities. My assumption is they are doing it to protect Israel and 'democratize' the Arabs in the whole region.

If you think this is crazy, too bad, these men cannot be stopped by any means apparently.

We are powerless. We can only sit back and watch the slaughter and carnage and insanity, and wonder how in the hell it ever got like this in such a short time. Incredible.

[shraby]

1. The fact that it's wrong aside,

Iran may bring the war to us. We're stretched thin and they have the means.

[Stella_Artois]

2. Thats not true

The day we say we are powerless is they day they have won.

[franksumatra]

4. not to be argumentative, but it looks as though they are unstoppable

I see absolutelty no one stopping them in their march to chaos.

[Stella_Artois]

8. Respectfully, i disagree.

It may have looked that way in 1967, but public opinion eventually held sway.

They can only get away with it if we let them.

[franksumatra]

10. I hope you're right Stella

I remember the rancor of 1967, and it all has a familiar ring to it.
Eventually the war did end, but man they drug it out as long as they could possibly get away with it. People will eventually snap out of it, but America is in this so deep, and so many more people will soon die before it all stops.

[franksumatra]

5. delete please

[radfringe]

3. they forgot the part about the flowers...

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believe that, just as with some Soviet-bloc countries, "the minute the aura of invincibility the mullahs enjoy is shattered ... the Iranian regime will collapse," the consultant said.


does this sound familiar? thrown flowers is missing...but familiar all the same

[franksumatra]

6. the invincibility of OUR mullahs needs to be shattered

but they are OUR christian conservative mullahs, so we let them do whatever they want. we know it, and they know it, no one will stop them.

[southernleftylady]

7. And then who is next? who are WE to try to change the world... if we ..

keep this up ... they world will try to "save" us ...
what a scary thought

[bluestateguy]

9. Invading Iran would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq

Believe it or not, a lot of Iranians, especially the younger generations, like Americans and our popular culture. There is much resentment against the mullahs and ayatollahs and their religious fascism, but the day we start carpet bombing the country and razing entire villages in search of some phantom "weapons of mass destruction" will be the day we lose the Iranian people for good. In addition, attacking Iran would probably result in a new round of Shiite attacks on US forces in Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr would probably reactive his Al-Mehdi army, and Ayatollah Sistani would then call for a holy war. At that point it's all over.

[franksumatra]

11. The neo cons are not operating on logic, only grim determination

to have their way. We really should get the hell out of there, but the maniacs are in charge, and no one seems too worried about it, but us.

[sendero]

23. Not only that....

... but the Iranian military capability, armament and personnel make sanction-weakened Iraq look like a cub scout troop.

[AngryAmish]

47. Iranian terrain is much diferent also

Iraq in Gulf War I was tough enough. Iran is much larger.

[aquart]

12. Protect Israel?

Can we stop this insanity that destabilizing the Middle East and killing Muslims is of any benefit to Israel? This is OUR policy. If Israel wanted to stop us, how would they?

Please stop pretending that postage stamp runs us. Because they're such clever wily Jews.

WE are doing this. It's our crime. Our sin. Stop looking for an out by blaming it on the Jews.

[franksumatra]

13. I've heard it stated hundred of times by various pundits

on both sides of the fence. I have NO opinion one way or the other in matters of the I/P nature. That's something I don't want to get into cause it's pointless.

I'm not slamming Israel, but I do reserve certain opinions, like all folks do.

I've even heard monkey man say the same thing if I'm not hallucinating. Part of the reason stated for being 'there' is the protection of Israel, even though I don't personally believe that's the sole reason.

[thinkingwoman]

18. Thank you, thank you, thank you

Every time Bushco does something we don't like, elements of DU blame the Jews!

It's got to stop.

Listen up everyone. Neocons make policy decisions they believe will benefit THEM. They could not care less about Israel and the Jews.

[sendero]

24. forget it.

edited to remove the obvious. People just refuse to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla sitting on the table.

[JohnyCanuck]

32. I suppose these visitors from Israel

must have been visiting the Pentagon to warn the OSP that the neo-con plans were counter productive and that they should exercise restraint.


The Spies Who Pushed for War

<snip>

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

[HamdenRice]

34. You have blinders on

This is not anti-Semitic, and no one is blaming "the Jews." In fact, we shouldn't even blame "Israel" as an entity.

The allegation is -- and it is well documented -- that the US neo-cons and the Israeli Likud have a powerful alliance rooted in an identical world view. They both believe Arabs only understand force and need to be crushed to the point that they cease all resistance. They both believed that peace in Israel required the destruction of Iraq. They both believed at one time in what Colin Powell called the insane "every one move over one" geopolitical model for the middle east -- namely, the Israelis get the west bank, the Palestinians get Jordan and the Jordanian monarchy gets Iraq. From the connections between PNAC and Likud to the Israeli spying scandal in the Pentagon, there is little doubt of this connection.

It does not, however, include all Jews, or for that matter, the Labor establishment within Israel.

All of this has been documented and corroborated by Sy Hersh -- who is Jewish, and probably therefore not an anti-Semite.

<edited>

[SOS]

51. "If Israel wanted to stop us"

That scenario has no connection to reality.

Times of London headline:

"Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-469972,00.html

[teryang]

14. The foreign policy of Rheinhard Heydrich

These people are nuts.

The Israelis say they'll do it themselves if we don't do it. They can't do it without substantial support and cooperation from us. Cruise missiles from three submarines striking Iraq are like flea bites on a elephants thick skin.

A bombing campaign against Iran will be unsuccessful in its political object and will cause immense blowback internationally.

[franksumatra]

16. We'll invade Poland, and the Poles will LOVE US!

rheinhard....what a guy....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. There's also China's relationship with Iran to take into consideration.

Iran has been working hard to develop relationships with countries that hold power over the US. They have in effect made it difficult for the US to use their smoke screen tactics to validate an attack. Iran has been ruled by far better political minds then the US.

For us to try something as overt as an invasion could be the end of America even for the Bushites. They worship their money and don't want to lose it.

They want to appear as if they are planning an attack. Which considering the the way the Iran government feels about the US is not wise in my opinion. One should never tease a lion, especially when you're already over extended.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Two things:

Don't call an Iranian an Arab. They are not, and the ones I know resent it if they are called Arabs-they are Persians. This goes way way back thousands of years, when Persia and Babylon were enemies.

Second, don't underestimate what Iran will do and cause its allies to do. Iran is smart to get in league with China, which is now producing a majority of our goods, it seems. Actually, China might see this as being in their best interests, because if we attack Iran, China might encourage N. Korea to preemptively strike us, being that they are the third "axis of evil". That will distract the N. Koreans from China, which will suit them fine, and help Iran, with all its oil reserves.

[Oversea Visitor]

27. The Russian are already in there

Remember the articles about Russian helping Iran to shot down UFO at the Iran nuclear facilities. This is going to be messy very very messy.

[saltpoint]

19. U.S. foreign policy has been terrible generally at least --

-- since 1945, and your phrase, "these fuckers are out of control," seems to me to about sum it up as well as it could be said.

[The Flaming Red Head]

20. If they want to democratize Arabs they need to invade a different country.

Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.

[franksumatra]

21. pardon my confusion, & thanks for the corrections

I should have said Muslim countries, although that wouldn't be entirely accurate either. The neo cons also have similar plans for Syria, Lebanon, etc, and if I'm not mistaken about the PNAC plan, the whole middle east.

[Oversea Visitor]

22. Dont think that is a possibility

However if they do then all hell break loose.
US will be booted out of UN.
There will be sanction place on US.
US will be force to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan too.

US is at a cliff as far as the rest of the world is concern.
Wont take much for the rest of the world to push them over it.

Hopefully Bush is a moron but not a lunatic. There is no controling the chain of events if they do that.

[no_hypocrisy]

25. To the regime in charge of our government, the UN is irrelevant.

If the UN kicks out the US, you can expect cries de coeur from Congress, telling them to pack their bags, pay their traffic tickets, and get out of New York City.

[Oversea Visitor]

26. So UN shift to EU

It is something to be expected. The significant of UN is to stay in a leadership country. The shifting of UN will only means that US is no longer the leader of the free world. A call for sanction then will means a unified response by all countries and basically with the level of distrust on the US policies it will not be surprising that all nations will impose it.

Basically if US attack Iran this will be a possible reality. UN might just shift without being ask too.

[SmokingJacket]

28. With what army?

Clearly they WANT to invade... but how are they going to pull it off with all the troops bogged down in Iraq? Maybe we'll cut and run there after the "elections"?

I doubt they could pull off a draft without a major terrorist attack as an excuse.

But... the seem to get away with everything.

I don't see Bush pissing away his "political capital" on destroying social security and medicare. He's obviously after bigger game.

[Ironpost]

30. Cut and run, Isn't that what we more or less did in Afghanistan

[HamdenRice]

33. Air strikes

According to the article, it will not be an invasion. The plan is to use air strikes against about 3 dozen targets. The demented fanatics believe that the Iranian people will then rise up and overthrow the mullahs. Just like the Iraqis greeted us with flowers and sweets.

[Deja Q]

29. Forgive me, but why is Israel worth defending again, so one-sidedly too?

The US wants to be the world's policeman, yet its actions are far less than non-partisan. As a policeman, the US is corrupt.

Besides, that's what the UN was supposed to be for, right? And they've pretty much gone soft too.

[DS1]

39. Beats the shit out of me

:shrug:

Well, they do buy a shitload of arms from us...

[midnight armadillo]

31. Invade with what??

The US Army is hardly in any shape to invade a mountainous country that's 2.5x larger than Texas. They'd have to pull units from all over Europe & Korea. Their equipment is worn out, and the troops are exhausted and demoralized. The Marines are hardly in any better shape.

Granted, the US would have air superiority, but that doesn't win wars, especially ones of occupation. The only way the US could invade would be to draft a few hundred thousand troops, train, and equip them. That would take months at least, and I doubt if the US has the industrial capacity to do this. The Army was running out of bullets, remember?

The US can't invade any time soon. I could see air strikes, but not a ground invasion.

[HamdenRice]

35. That's what the article says ...

The US would use air strikes against WMD targets. Then, according to the demented neo cons, the Iranian people would spontaneously rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

I think the result will be 10,000 to 15,000 well trained Iranian shiite guerillas infiltrated into Iraq to fight the US -- but then, I'm part of the reality based community.

[Zynx]

46. Lord is that stupid.

Pretty much all the Iranians like their nuclear weapons program.

Not to mention the last popular uprising in Iran got crushed largely by a popular anti-uprising.

The country is pretty much split 1/3-1/3-1/3. 1/3 wants change, 1/3 just wants to be left alone, and 1/3 buys in HARD to the system.

You bomb them, you pretty much wipe out the moderates and the liberals because they'll be pissed as well.

[Strelnikov_]

42. They Do Not Need A Huge Force To Occupy Iran’s Oil Fields

Conveniently located along Iraq's border. My bet is that we stop at the Zagros mountains.

This will also have benefits (as the Neo-Cons see it) for the stabilization of Iraq, which is critical to their strategic position in the middle of 2/3 of the worlds remaining petroleum and natural gas reserves. There is no way Iraq can be brought to heel without 500,000 troops on the ground, and there is no way we can provide this many troops without a draft.

And they will need an attack by a State actor to justify a draft. Another terror attack on U.S. soil would not provide the justification, and would be probably be seen as a failing, particularly after the campaign statements that Our Leader would keep the security Mom’s safe.

Here's the way I think it will play out.

Step 1) ‘Israel’ strikes Iran's 'nuk-ler' infrastructure.

Step 2) Iran lash's out at US forces in gulf region. Look for the Kitty Hawk and John F. Kennedy steaming up and down the coast of Iran supporting operations, in harm's way.

Step 3) The Emperor Chimp goes in front of Congress, says that we are victims of an unprovoked attack, like Pearl Harbor, calls for a draft to raise sufficient military strength to deal with the 'terraist' threat from Iran.

Step 4) Occupy SE corner of Iran, flatlands (tank country) where oil is. Brutally suppress any remaining opposition in Iraq with our new draftee legions to liberate them from the oppressive burden of oil wealth.

Step 5) Give massive contracts to Halliburton and other buddies to sell off the Iranian oil as 'reparations' for their dastardly attack.

Step 6a) The Oligarchs get rich.

Step 6b) The rest of us go broke or die trying to push through the Zagros mountains and occupy Iran. Of course, this part of the substep is not that important ('Bring em On').

War for profit and control of the masses, that is the face of the new GOP.

Ever wonder what Israel needs long range F-15's and 5000 (just delivered) bunker buster bombs for? Bombing Gaza?

[midnight armadillo]

55. Well said

I didn't realize that Iran's oil was close to the Iraq border...that certainly changes the equation, doesn't it? If we wanted to beef up the Iraq forces to 500k...let's see, that's an addition 270,000 soldiers. Triple that to provide for the 'one deployed, one preparing, one recovering' plan the Army follows, and that's a mere 800,000+ troops!

I'm going to print out your sequence of events. I wish I could claim otherwise, but it seems like a pretty plausible sequence.........

[Strelnikov_]

59. Simple Map Showing Iran's Oil Fields (CIA 1978)

The second map seems to be from a tin-foil site. But it illustrates how having legions in Iraq leverages influence over most of the world's remaining oil reserves. In other words, if I were a President wanting to control most of the worlds oil, the first place I would invade would be Iraq.

This map is a biggie, but maps oil field location against topography. (Note the size of the Ghawar field in SA)

http://www.sunship.com/mideast/info/maps/middle-east-military-and-oil-map.html



"More than 70% of the total world oil supply is in the Oil Corridor (shaded area)."

[MisterP]

56. alternatives:

1) Freshly "re-elected" Lawee (Bush pronunciation) raises the Iraqi NG/Army to "defend" against Iran; we are "asked" to provide air support by bombing the targets (after Iran strikes back).
3.5) MEK taken off the turrst list.
4.5) The Iranians break the dams upriver in the foothills, flooding several rivers.
6.5) Iranians rise up for clerics and against chimperial invaders.

or we and Israel invade Syria first.

[DS1]

36. There's a dark part of me that says good

Let the Bushies slash and burn this country out of existence for all I care :grr:

[Hamlette]

37. just expanding our search for WMD

when we find them in Iran that will be used to justify war with Iraq.

And Americans will buy it.

[franksumatra]

38. Virtually every nation has WMD's of some sort

W's going to be quite busy in his 2nd term.

[Zenlitened]

40. I think the case can be made that Iran is a real problem...

How I wish President Kerry was about to get to work to address the problem.

Bush has trashed our military, trashed our credibility, trashed our ability to address complex issues in a way that advances our national security.

I have every confidence that he'll fuck this situation up, too.

It just gets scarier every day.

[Strelnikov_]

44. The Impression I Got From The Article Is That Iran Is Willing To Deal

And the sticking point is U.S. acceptance of the plan.

Of course, a deal does not guarantee a nuclear free Iran, but it does buy some time. And considering the growing dissatisfaction within Iran with the conservation elements, this may all that is needed.

I am afraid that an air attack would only lead to driving the reform minded in Iran into the camp of the conservatives. Also, in the post A.Q. Khan world, it seems putting the vast majority of our resources into preventing one country from gaining a nuclear weapon is closing the barn door a little late.

It appears that the 'diplomacy' option was the conclusion of the following 'war game' conducted by former national security staffers:

Will Iran Be Next?
By James Fallows. The Atlantic Monthly. 12/04

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=60&num=15630

. . .

"So this is how the war game turned out: with a finding that the next American President must, through bluff and patience, change the actions of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited. "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

[poe]

45. Iran's weapons of mass destruction are....

their recent contracts with india and china in the energy sector and their decision to trade their oil through a boursing system which means bye-bye petrodollar hello euro. Iran possibly has world's largest LNG reserves in world. Halliburton wants it. For more info go to www.energybulletin.net

[Strelnikov_]

52. It Is About The Oil (and Nat Gas). It Has Always Been About The Oil

It is the only way any of it makes sense.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

43. It's not all about Dean

And, despite what he seems to think, he wasn't the only anti-war candidate.

Sorry - just wanted to address this.

The rest of the comments on here are valid and worth reading. This one was just off-kilter in this thread.

[tom_paine]

48. Well, I think LIHOP #2 (perhaps MIHOP) must come first

So look out San Francisco!

Both the Busheviks and Bin Laden loathe you for identical reasons.

Keep your heads down for the next few months because the Bushevik Sitzkrieg is going to end within the next year, I think.

[laura888]

50. I've also thought that a second one might be coming...

they can only use 9/11 for so long...

[tom_paine]

60. Phase II MUST be implemented

and that will require another Bushevik Black Op to shock the National System the rest of the way to their dream amalgam of Imperial Rome-Nazi Germany-Soviet Union.

Will it be Kinder and Gentler than those places, in the end, as it is now?

Probably, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Strelnikov_]

53. Once Israel Strikes Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure, And Iran Lashes Back

at U.S. forces in the gulf, they will have their LIHOP rationale to continue with the war and initiate a draft.

I feel that an attack by a State actor would be needed to justify a draft politically. Another terror attack on U.S. soil would not provide the justification, and would be probably be seen as a failing, particularly after the campaign statements that Our Leader would keep the security Mom’s safe.

Here's the way I think it will play out.

Step 1) ‘Israel’ strikes Iran's 'nuk-ler' infrastructure.

Step 2) Iran lash's out at US forces in gulf region. Look for the Kitty Hawk and John F. Kennedy steaming up and down the coast of Iran supporting operations, in harm's way.

Step 3) The Emperor Chimp goes in front of Congress, says that we are victims of an unprovoked attack, like Pearl Harbor, calls for a draft to raise sufficient military strength to deal with the 'terraist' threat from Iran.

Step 4) Occupy SE corner of Iran, flatlands (tank country) where oil is. Brutally suppress any remaining opposition in Iraq with our new draftee legions to liberate them from the oppressive burden of oil wealth.

Step 5) Give massive contracts to Halliburton and other buddies to sell off the Iranian oil as 'reparations' for their dastardly attack.

Step 6a) The Oligarchs get rich.

Step 6b) The rest of us go broke or die trying to push through the Zagros mountains and occupy Iran. Of course, this part of the substep is not that important ('Bring em On').

War for profit and control of the masses, that is the face of the new GOP.

[doodadem]

58. Armageddon

Wasn't it someone like Seymour Hersh that wrote about Bush being a member of the religious crazies who think they are doing God's work if they bring about Armageddon in the Middle East?
I personally think Bush is less relgious than my dog and uses this group for his own ends, but he'd have to be certifiable to think he can start a war on another front.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. No way! We would get our butts kicked and even Rummie knows it.

[Geek_Girl]

54. Does anyone have a link to

a story that said that Richard Pearle was an advisor to Israel back in the mid 90's and he advised Israel that Iraq, Iran, and Syrian government would have to be overthrown in order for Israel to be safe? I remember seeing the article but I know longer have the link. I think it was in the Guardian, but I can't seem to find it. If anyone knows can you post it.

[pdxmom]

57. And then there was North Korea

If the U.S. goes through with this, I don't see North Korea sitting there quietly watching it happen. If we go after 2/3 of the "axis of evil", I can envision N. Korea deciding to use a pre-emptive strike, cause they'll know they're next. And I don't much see the rest of the world getting too upset about that. If we go after 2 countries who aren't bothering us, why wouldn't we go after a 3rd? This is an absolutely scary scenerio.