What will it take to Sack Iran?

[The Doctor.]

I have no qualms about telling friends and family we're gearing up to invade Iran.

We must if we want to save the Dollar and maintain any leverage over our debtors.

So they tell me, "There's no way we'll attack Iran - another war? -No way."

Those who are informed remind me that Iran has already started to bend over backwards to comply with non-proliferation rules.

I say, "Sure they probably have some enriched uranium somewhere, but even if they turn it over, we'll ask for 'the rest of it'.
But don't you worry, there'll be some kind of catalyzing event to roll us into that one - something REALLY neat!
Something terrible will happen to us and we'll say it had something to do with them.
They'll swear upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and on Allah's balls that they had nothing to do with it."

"Then we will show the 'proof' (courtesy of the Office of Special Plans) that they had a hand, or they harbor those that did.
This will be followed by a rain of Massive Ordinance Air Burst bombs on various targets in Iran and subsequent invasion from two fronts.

Oh, and of course there will be a draft instated due to the heinous nature of the 'crime' perpetrated 'by them' 'against us'."

I highly recommend telling all your friends and family (especially the wing-nuts), that something TERRIBLE is going to happen to get us into Iran.

It is my hope that if there is enough dialogue EXPECTING a catastrophe that we might AVOID one altogether.

I'd rather be crazy on the off-chance it might prevent something, than 'normal' and wait around for it.

Besides... It'll be SO MUCH FUN to say "I told you so." when it does happen.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. One stupid leader. EOM

[truth2power]

2. Don't worry. You're not crazy. eom

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Nukes. We'll be bombing the crap outta them.

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[meppie-meppie not]

6. I had the same thought! n/t

[hangloose]

4. Troops unlikely but lots of missiles and bombs and ultimatums

[bemildred]

5. You are not correct.

We are trying to get Iran to attack us.
Then, we will gear up to attack Iran.
That will look completely different than what is happening now.

Edit: Iraq -> Iran.

[Donna Zen]

7. Iraq????

Iraq attack us? I'm not sure what you mean.

I agree that it will look, when the time comes, as if we had no alternative.

The wack-jobs currently running the asylum firmly believe, according to Sy Hersh, that the opposition in Iran will rise up, join us, and freedom will be on the move. Hersh's recent article have preempted their plans, and I'm sure they are not only scrambling for plan B, but also plotting to ruin Hersh. BTW, Clark has also been talking about this since last summer. The Gulf is very concerned that Iran will now take over Iraq and change the balance of power in the region.

IOW, we have spent blood and treasure to insure Tehran a victory. Maybe the wacks think that by fomenting revolution in Iran, they can save their asses. I have my doubts that any of their plans can work--they are too greedy and crazy for starters.

[bemildred]

9. See edit. nt

[bemildred]

11. They don't believe anything of the sort.

They don't care. They rely on the fact that Iran has not the
means to reach us here at home (much), and they seek a wider
war to justify the full mobilization of the american people,
the draft, etc., only so can they hold onto power.

[Donna Zen]

14. According to Hersh

I qualified my musings with the attribution to Hersh.

What they really think is not to be known in absolute terms. They don't want to have this discussion with the American people.

[bemildred]

44. True, we're all guessing out here in TV land.

And I meant no insult to you personally. I will stipulate that I
was a bit careless with my language there.

Needless to say, I'm pointing out that I disagree with Hr. Hersh's
interpretation somewhat. I think he has tasted a bit of the KoolAid.

Note that I'm not saying that the Bushites don't want to start a
war with Iran, they do, but right now what is being worked on is
some sort of pretext, a casus belli, getting the Iranians to
do something stupid. When you are actually getting ready to attack
someone, you don't telegraph the blow.

All Iran really needs to do is sit there and watch us bleed, refusing
under any circumstances to be provoked or be anything less than a
peaceful nation.

[The Doctor.]

19. Did you get this part? ...

"I say, "Sure they probably have some enriched uranium somewhere, but even if they turn it over, we'll ask for 'the rest of it'.
But don't you worry, there'll be some kind of catalyzing event to roll us into that one - something REALLY neat!
Something terrible will happen to us and we'll say it had something to do with them.
They'll swear upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and on Allah's balls that they had nothing to do with it."

"Then we will show the 'proof' (courtesy of the Office of Special Plans) that they had a hand, or they harbor those that did.
This will be followed by a rain of Massive Ordinance Air Burst bombs on various targets in Iran and subsequent invasion from two fronts."

[progressiveright]

23. hopefully iran's regime will fall

on its own, its hated by over half of the population, they have to rig voting and legislative process to stay in power. I hope we can resolve this without harming iranian people, but the truth is that iranian leadership is taking their country on the collision course with the rest of the world. They are the number one supporter of terrorists, they cooperated with bin laden (unlike Iraq) as 9/11 comission said, when their parlament voted to proceed with 'peaceful' nuclear program - they ended the vote with most of their parlament standing up and yelling 'death to america'. Call me crazy but it doesn't make me like them.

The thing though is that Reagan ended the cold war (note: he ended it, not won it, the russians who overthrew soviet government were the ones who really won it) without a single shot fired. Hopefully we can engage Iran on a diplomatic level until they soften their policies and rhetoric. However its futile to trust bush to do that, i hope he will but you never know, according to the latest Woodward book (which administration praised as well) neocons were scared that diplomacy of powell was going to succeed in Iraq and worked against diplomatic solutions.

[The Doctor.]

24. How did Reagan end the cold war? (fun test)

I like what you say. I hope you are right.

I'm curious... can you give me a source for the 'death to America' tirade?

In your words though - How did Reagan end the cold war?
(In other words; what actions of ours put the USSR in a position to be deposed by their people?)

[progressiveright]

28. well

the republican version is that reagan kept building up our military forcing soviets to do the same, which they weren't able to sustain economically (hence weapons programs = good), which i think is bullshit.

It was about reagan, for all his evil empire talk, welcoming soviet prime minister gorbachev with open arms, negotiating and compromising, signing treaties. It was pretty powerful to see both america and soviet union leaders working together, pledging their committment to peace; people in both countries started to realise that we don't have to be enemies bent on destroying each other. Soviet domination rested upon isolating russians from any contact with american views and culture, portraying america as the 'evil empire' that is out to destroy them. reagan worked with gorbachev to introduce freedom of press (glasnost) and some private business (perestroika) into the state run media and economy, which was really like opening flood gates that couldn't be closed again. That's what really mattered, not the fact that increased defense spending made economy worse, soviet citizens were quite accustomed to being 'equally poor', it wasn't the reason hundreds of thousands of people went out with yeltzin to stand in front of soviet tanks the day soviet union fell.

And btw I grew up in Russia, moved to USA when I was 14.

I am not sure about source for the 'death to america' chant in iranian paliament, except for remembering hearing about it on the media, I'm sure it's out there somewhere I'll see if I can find some articles, you can do the same.

[Sufi Marmot]

35. So according to your theory...

...we should probably re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran ASAP, so that "people in both countries...realize that we don't have to be enemies bent on destroying each other." Instead of turing Iran into this scarey boogeyman who is more dangerous than it really is.

Having an embassy in Tehran would also make it more likely that we'd find out about what's really going on with their nuclear program, such as it may be.

-SM

[Sufi Marmot]

32. How, exactly, did Iran help bin Laden? n/t

[progressiveright]

34. 9/11 comission

iranian border agents had specific instruction to let through those that identified themselves as al quada. that's about it, but its certainly a lot more cooperation than existed between bin laden and saddam, who hated each other.

[Sufi Marmot]

36. Got a link or a reference?

I had heard that al-Qaeda members may have transited through Iran at times, but was it ever clear that it was with the tacit knowledge/approval of the Iranian government? What's the evidence that al-Qaeda members announced themselves to Iranian officials as such?

-SM

[MsMagnificent]

69. Wasn't that post Iraqi invasion?

We gained a WHOLE lotta new enemies with that little preemptive war.

[Kenneth ken]

33. ...

" its hated by over half of the population, they have to rig voting and legislative process to stay in power. I hope we can resolve this without harming iranian people, but the truth is that iranianUS leadership is taking their country on the collision course with the rest of the world. They are the number one supporter of terrorists..."

Welcome to DU - you had some obvious typos, so I fixed 'em for you. :)

[The Doctor.]

48. Nice Edit. nt

[Senator Lamb]

60. hmmmmmmm

the first two sentences of your statement sounds strinkingly familiar.......

[MsMagnificent]

72. Resolve WHAT?!

WE don't HAVE to resolve ANYTHING in Iran!
Why should we? Because they MAY do something in the FUTURE??
Because they HATE us?!

THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HATE US. And I mean that at the most basic level: in their own choice TO BE FREE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE WHOEVER THEY WISH! We, too, are free to hate or love whomever we like -- but WE DON'T HAVE THE IMPERATIVE RIGHT TO SUBORN OR FORCE ANYONE TO DO WHAT *WE* WANT THEM TO OR DICTATE WHAT THEY SHOULD DO!

WHERE THEN is this "Freedom" we so self-congratulatorily bestow?

THERE IS NONE.

Because if they're not free to live the way THEY choose -- THEY'RE NOT FREE.

And if WE view their government as oppressive -- it's THEIR duty, on THEIR own decision and time to revolt and CHANGE THEMSELVES!
And it's done ALL THE TIME... do NOT underestimate the POWER OF THE PEOPLE!

It's not for us to say 'oh those poor people they'll NEVER BE FREE until WE (LITERALLY) FORCE THEM TO BE'!
Don't you people see the humongous FLAW in that hypothesis?!

They hate us? Well, if I were a citizen of just about any Middle East country --lately we haven't gained friends in many countries anywhere in the world, neither-- I'd hate America too!
A country who wages preemptive war based upon LIES,
and it does turn out that in fact Yes, it WAS for oil!
WHO in their right mind --a conscientious mind, not an avaricious one!-- would want to emulate WHAT WE DO?

We're Liberators alright -- we liberate them from their LIVELIHOOD, their WAY OF LIFE, their CULTURE, their RESOURCES, and THEIR LIVES

We lasted through decades of the Cold War decrying the Soviet Union's tactics of going in and "Liberating" other countries TO MAKE THEM LIVE AS THE SOVIETS LIVED because the Soviets were SO sure they had the RIGHT way to live, that would benefit ANYONE, ANYWHERE ELSE in the World! Indeed, these invaded countries would THANK them in the long run!

Sound familiar? HOW do WE, doing the SAME THING, then make it RIGHT?!

And I'll clue you in on another Truth: Reagan did NOT change the Soviet Union. Nixon did not change the Soviet Union.
Not ONE SINGLE AMERICAN changed the Soviet Union!

The Soviet Union changed themselves!


The Iranians hate us? Good for them! We'd hate any country who'd come into our sovereign land doing the same thing to us!

And I don't mean the word "war" as is meant by any American newspaper or media's fluffy, unreal definition. I mean "war" as bloody and invasive; WAR as "Collateral damage" a nice phrase that just happens to mean the brutal deaths of civilians, families and children; WAR as brains and intestines exploded out, WAR as the actual reek of offal and decay and death.
REAL WAR -- Not with a few embedded propagandists or carefully chosen sound bytes, or well-edited film clips of people just about to be brutally murdered and then cut away to a good looking talking-head and Oh! we just feel so much better! They never show the slightest trace of the true face of War on OUR screens of course, it's too BRUTAL for US you know! ...but it's not so for anyone we just happen to target. It actually HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE, IT HAPPENS TO OUR OWN SOLDIERS but LET'S NOT BE REMINDED BY SEEING THOSE POOR CHILDRENS ACTUAL COFFINS! Oh no!
It's SO much nicer, here in America, to view War, removed behind a glass or plasma screen as some clean, glorious, intellectual, and above all MORAL exercise don't you know!
And we're so superior to bestow that upon other peoples of the world!

We're so insulated here between Canada and Mexico we have NO IDEA what it's like in other countries (Rwanda. Kosovo. Cambodia.)
-- but mark my words, we keep being the bad, bully neighbor to those (and many other) countries, and we are just asking to see some of that Real War brought to our very own streets. And those who have brought their own reality TO us --and yes it was barbaric and horrific but not more barbaric and horrific than happens in their countries BECAUSE of our actions in their countries. Those we call terrorists and we look not at our actions that were the impetus for those attacks. Instead we take their REALITY which WE WITHOUT DOUBT, specifically and intentionally IMPOSE ONTO THEM in their far away countries, and irresponsibly turn it into a vague blame about them hating Freedom.


You know what we HAVE to do, before we do ANYTHING else? We HAVE to strengthen our OWN borders and transportation and make them safe so that any terrorists DO NOT GET IN. We HAVE to take care of our OWN people, make sure they're healthy and educated and have Hope and Justice and Opportunity and FREEDOM HERE AT HOME. We HAVE to stay OUT of the Nation-Building and the World-Police business, we're not good at it; and while we're at it OUT of the "I'll MAKE you do this because, never mind what YOU want, I WANT YOU TO" frame of mind!

We HAVE to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, NOT BY FORCE!

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT FORCING OTHER PEOPLE TO LIVE BY WHAT WE DECIDE DOES NOT MAKE THEM FREE!

WHERE is THEIR right of self-determination?

TELL ME THAT! EXPLAIN that to me!
And while you're at it EXPLAIN why WE'RE SO SUPERIOR that we can TELL EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE! We're so PERFECT?! (Prejudice. Ku Klux Klan.) Our crime rates are non-existent? (Young black men leading killers of young black men. Husbands leading killers of pregnant wives.) We have no poverty?! (Too many examples to even list.) EVERY American citizen has full human rights and equality? (Matthew Shepard. Gay Union.) We respect our land and environment? (Pollution. Smog. Broken Treaties. #1 in emissions for GLOBAL WARMING AND CHANGE (& I DON"T mean what we call GOOD change!) AND WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK THAT EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS VERY NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY WHAT WE DO!) We're so damn great we ensure food, clothing, higher education, health care and a DECENT HOME to every single citizen?! (I don't know where to even START!)

Our WOMEN are STILL earning 70% of what men are! GIVE ME A BREAK!


WE DON'T *HAVE* TO DO ONE BLESSED THING TO IRAN OTHER THAN LET THEM BE! LET THEM LIVE THE WAY THEY WISH TO LIVE, OR CHANGE THEIR SOCIETY IN THE WAY THEY WISH TO CHOOSE
-- NOT HOW WE DICTATE!

They hate us? Here's a couple suggestions to change that:

LET US BECOME A FRIEND INSTEAD OF A BULLY!
Let us HELP them instead of our usual FORCING them to do not what is in THEIR interests but OUR interests!

BUT FIRST, THE VERY FIRST THING OH MY DEAR LORD WE HAVE TO CORRECT ARE ALL THE MISTAKES AND SINS UPON ALL INVIOLATE HUMAN BEINGS WE DELIBERATELY AND IMMORALLY PERPETRATE IN OUR OWN LAND, AND THEN, ONLY THEN CAN WE LOOK UNTO OTHERS -- AND THEN WITH TRUE HUMILITY!

"...before you remove the mote in your neighbor's eye, remove the LOG FROM YOUR OWN".

[DemOperative]

8. It will Take a king-sized draft

Count on THAT.

[Donna Zen]

12. Not necessarily

We have plenty of unused air power at this time. Actually more than when we were covering northern and southern Iraq. There are two other reasons, one of which I mentioned. They really, really. really believe that the opposition party in Iraq will rise up.

It is hard to know what they are up to because they are so very secretive. But they must break the bond between Sistani and Iran (or so they think.) And...they must stop the development of nukes in Iran. Of course they will never talk to anyone, or try anything that might otherwise look like showing leadership.

[American Tragedy]

17. The initial operation isn't the problem.

You can't conquer a country with blitzkrieg tactics alone. Even if we successfully destroyed the leadership, we would need far greater numbers in order to occupy Iran, a significantly larger and more developed nation than Iraq.

[Zhade]

25. What bond? Sistani is not Iran's puppet, after all.

I think the idea is to attack Iran with air power (possibly after an incident here pinned on them), widen the war going on in Iraq, and then push for a draft.

"Growing pains", they'd call it.

[Donna Zen]

67. Sistani is lying low

Sistani must stay clear of the elections until such time that legitimacy can be claimed. While a Sistani government will not have the same sever fundamentalist bent as the Iranian government, the bond between the two states will be close. That is not my thinking, that is the thinking of the moderate Gulf states. Personally, I am willing to credit their opinion because it is both logical and comes from those closest to struggle.

[googly]

71. I guess you did not hear of ROBO-SOLDIERS due to be used in

Iraq starting in March-APril. These 3 foot tall robots are equipped with
video camera's and deadly guns. They are remotely operated by soldiers.
These robots also communicate with bigger guns half a mile away which can
then unload deadly barrage on the enemy. Pentagon is touting these robo-
soldiers since they do not require caskets or visits to family when
killed in action.

[DrGonzoLives]

10. Nothing

The plans are already made, the administration just needs to invent an excuse.

[bemildred]

13. Here is another one:

Is this about getting ready to attack Iran, or is it about trying
to get Iran to attack us:

War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush

US President George Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami says his country is ready to defend itself against a possible US attack.

The United States is pushing for a peaceful solution to its nuclear impasse with Iran but, with mistrust on both sides running high, encouraging signs are hard to find.

“You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list,” Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday, hours before being sworn in to a second term.

Scotsman

[Donna Zen]

15. At the Gulf conference

It was clear that no one if or to whom this administration is talking to in Iraq. They have not joined the Europeans in their talks.

They also refuse to talk to Syria.

One thing I know: Whoever voted for these fuckers has put the world in deep shit.

[The Doctor.]

18. I think you may have missed the point of my post....

I did say that there would be an 'event' we would pin on Iran, whther they did it or not.

- It would seem that we actually agree.

[bemildred]

45. Yes, it's not a big difference.

I disagree mainly with the idea that the Bushites will be able to
force the issue -- as they did in Iraq -- with Iran. They will need
some cooperation in the form of a stupid move from the Ayatollahs that
will justify the really big mobilization and buildup that will be
required (even under the Alice-in-Wonderlandy thinking that goes on
inside the beltway) to actually conduct a war with Iran. Any attack
on Iran WILL result in a war with Iran, and we will get our asses
handed to us without an adequate mobilization to support it.

The Bushites have been trying to provoke both Syria and Iran for some
time now, years, with little success. There is little reason at this
point to think the Iranians do not know the score, they have played
the game well, and they are winning. Why should they take the bait now?

The Bushites problem is that they have no other cards to play, as long
as the conflict remains confined to the bleeding ground in Iraq, they
are toast, it's just a matter of time, and they CANNOT improve their
political support at home, which is the problem, without some external
blow to justify their aggressions. All this blather that Hersh is
reporting is aimed at making a credible threat to Iran, to get Iran
to react (IMHO).

[The Doctor.]

47. Ummm....

What I'm saying is that the Bushites WILL MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN to pin on Iran.

A nice 3kilo suitcase nuke in an American city outta do the trick.

[bemildred]

53. Right. That's where we disagree. nt

[The Doctor.]

57. So... when something horrible happens that Iran has nothing to do with

But the administration blames Iran, the MSM blames Iran, and we go to war with Iran because of it...

You'll believe that it's not happening?

You said we want the Iranian leaders to 'do' something to provoke us.
I say that we will not wait for that to happen...

Are you saying you trust this administration to 'play fair'?

[bemildred]

59. No, it's not that.

I'm sure they would, I just don't think they can make it happen
a second time. They are having trouble getting bodies as it is.
Their credibility is already comparable to Tricky Dicks around
1973. You don't think we got out of VietNam because we wanted
to do you? Why not another "incident" back then? It has to be
credible.

It's the "what if they had a war and nobody showed up" problem.
And also, the rest of the World is not likely to stand by. If they
are to have a casus belli with Iran it must be a credible
one this time, and not just to the TV addicts and political fundies.

If events prove me wrong, then I will have been wrong.

[The Doctor.]

61. I do hope you are right...

I see what your point is now.

Strictly credibility.

That's why I will happily tell everyone that "All we need to invade Iran is the equivalent of a nuke going off on American soil we can blame on them."

If I tell enough people, whether they think I'm nuts or not, they will have serious concerns if something horrible does happen... ("maybe he wasn't so crazy after all.")

If a milion or so people make some serious dialogue out of this, then there exists that slim possibility that, if such a treacherous plan exists, it will be scrapped in the face of possible public scrutiny.

Either way - the notion is to raise the level of public scrutiny over the actions of the administration. If a million 'conspiracy nuts' talk enough about it - it would not be in the best interest of the administration to 'let' something like that happen. They would rather deride all the 'tin foil hats' as wackos than lend them any credibility.

So at the potential cost of my personal credibility I have been mentioning our plans to overthrow the Mullahs and postulating just what it may take to get American support for a new war.

I'll be perfectly happy to say - "Well, I guess I was just being paranoid.", rather than, "See, told you."

But I see this as a win-win, with the only loss being a smidgen of my credibility.

So tell people, "You know, our leaders NEED something to happen to mix it up with Iran... I wonder what they're working on?"

(You did mention our attempts at provocation I believe... so that just puts me on the wackier side of the same page.)

[bemildred]

62. You are not paranoid.

I suggested they might try an "incident" around Christmas for the
reasons we are discussing, but it didn't happen. I was a bit shy
of it then and feel firmer about that now, but it's not because I
think that sort of thing is beneath them, they already did it once.
I consider 9/11 at least LIHOP. If you read a bit of American history
similar "incidents" crop up before a number of big wars.

I hope I'm right too.

[The Doctor.]

68. Amen. n/t

[American Tragedy]

16. Iran's compliance with non-proliferation ruling is MEANINGLESS.

There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq until the Bush administration cast them out, and subsequently mobilized troops at the borders of the country.

That having been said, I'm not convinced yet that America will actually invade Iran. And God I sure hope not, because I know the military doesn't have the numbers for such an operation, and we won't for the foreseeable future.

[gjb]

31. China just signed a $100 billion oil deal with Iran. If anyone thinks....

that they will run away from a $100 billion loss think again. Chaney is openly musing that Israel may jump the gun and bomb Iran.

China will hold the US responsible no matter what Chaney says. If Iran is attacked Taiwan becomes a suburb of Shanghai. At that point the world is going to become interesting in a very unstable way.

If Iran is attacked Israel, Taiwan, Kazakhstan and Korea will become full on hot and there will be no way to control the situation.

Not to mention that China will dump all it's US debt and dollar holdings. Goodbye US dollar, hello hyperinflation.

Chaney is the most dangerous, impulse impaired politician since Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy. He's all cock and balls and zero brain.

[Kenneth ken]

37. a good point

maybe several. If the US attacks Iran, on whatever pretext, N Korea definitely becomes a problem; after all they are the 3rd part of Bush*'s axis of evil, so they would certainly see clearly the writing on the wall when the 1st and 2nd "evil" countries have been attacked.

Thanks for mentioning that; I had sort of left them out of my thinking.

China is a different question. The $100 bn oil deal is a big factor; but (I believe) they are holding more US debt and dollars than that, so simply dumping dollars is not exactly a simple choice. The ripple effect spreads world-wide in that scenario.

It might be the sanest thing for the world, though.

[Vox_Reason]

52. China's response to an Iranian invasion

Interesting. What if your scenario played out, but with an added wrinkle--what if the Chinese decided that they didn't need the Iranians either, and that if we were to start things, they could just as easily decide to finish them?

What if in response to our Iranian invasion, the Chinese simultaneously moved into not only Taiwan but also into Iran, to not only finish the job we started but to also push us out? Couple that with crippling economic warfare against us, and then a continued push westward into Iraq with far superior numbers of boots on the ground to continue to force us out?

Going a little further--after that, why would the Chinese spare the Saudis or any other oil-producing middle eastern nation? With their overwhelming troop numbers, they could occupy the largest oil-producing countries in the middle east in relatively short order. They would then work with their Russian allies to continue building up that country's large untapped production capacity, and they would control a massive percentage of oil production worldwide, with essentially no effective opposition short of nuclear armageddon.

We would be hosed beyond belief, and the entire geopolitical scene would be turned upside down.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[kineneb]

20. they will come up with some bogus excuse

and then attack. However...they have already underestimated the reactions from the Iranian/Persian people. Ya' see, I have family there and lived there (albeit only 1 year). The Persian people love their very ancient country, no matter who the leaders may be. And we will get our butts, and perhaps heads, handed to us on a platter. It will be even more folly than Afghanistan and Iraq. More on the order of Vietnam...very ugly. And I agree, BushCo will manufacture an excuse to drag us in there. This has been part of the PNAC plans long before GWB was installed in the White House. They want a string of bases all around the Middle East to control the oil. And they will do Anything to achieve their goal.

[progressiveright]

21. 'sack it?'

We got enough bombs to sack anybody. If our intelligence can locate all their nuclear programs we can take them out. Our satellites can watch their army and guide rockets to hit them with great precision.

If we do have to go in it will be a lot more difficult than iraq, but still our bombs can decimate their troops, military strongholds, ships, tanks, artillery before our ground troops actually engage them, making it no contest. That's why our victory in Iraq was so easy.

But will we be able to hold on to anything after we 'win'? Absolutely not. We can beat anybody militarily. If our objective is to destroy Iran's army we can do it. And then what?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[drdtroit]

27. "our victory in Iraq" ??????????

:wtf:

[progressiveright]

29. lol

that was basically the question, can 'we' beat iran like we did iraq, hence the term 'our victory'. my opinion is that we can beat them militarily (although at a much greater cost than Iraq), but we don't have any resources to do anything afterwards (unless we start a draft and raise taxes), hold on to the territory, rebuild it, whatever you wanna call it, so unless they actually attack us beating them is kind of pointless. so ?...

[martymar64]

65. Not Necessarily . . .

If Iran has the Sunburn cruise missiles on mobile launchers that it is rumored, the could decimate the fleet in the Persian Gulf and close the oil spigot with some strategic sinkings in the Straits of Hormuz. That would adversely affect the US supply chain for the presence in Iraq, making a land invasion of Iran even more problematic.

[mvd]

22. Iran will be a really hard sell

They could very well try it knowing them, but I believe it would wake up many people who haven't caught on yet.

Just where would they get all the soldiers besides a draft that would put their kids in jeopardy?

[progressiveright]

30. i don't think its happening

i dont think republicans will be able to get our country to preemptively attack iran. it will take a long time, it seems, before we can pull out of iraq, we will need a draft for any kind of prolonged military campaign. it would be political suicide as well, i hope political self preservations wins over neocon ideology with republicans.
if they do attack us that would be another story. then again, if they do attack us first then international community will be much more united in taking them on, unlike iraq where it was more or less 'wtf is usa doing ?'

[American Tragedy]

38. Who would believe it, though?

If there was an attack, and the administration or the military claimed that Iran was responsible, how could the world believe it?

Would you believe the Bush administration, knowing what you know now about them?

[MHalblaub]

51. It will also be a really hard game

Iran have a long coast line to the Persian Gulf. The Iranian answer to an American air strike would be a missile strike against ships in the gulf with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles. Exocet missiles are small and slow against a sunburn missiles. Two Iraqi Exocets sank nearly the USS Stark during Iran-Iraq war. China got a lot of Sunburn missiles for sold.

After an air strike the Persian gulf would be a war zone. Even if an supertanker is named "Condoleezza" it will not make way through the Strait of Hormuz. But supertankers are cheap compared with an aircraft carrier.

[Neverarepublican]

39. Did everyone read the part of Bush's speech where he says?

You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character.

Basically, Bush is saying, make the choice to serve in or we will make it for you.

I have 3 boys, age 15, 12 and 10. I am sick with worry everyday.

Also, has anyone seen courage winning in Iraq?

[Skidmore]

40. I have one son

who is turning 24 this year. He's in the age group to be called first. His father was an Iranian. We lived there when my son was an infant and up till he was five. I got him out of Iran during the war and hostage mess because I didn't want him to grow up to be cannon fodder for the mullahs. Now he may be cannon fodder for the neocons. I just feel sick.

[CWebster]

41. Rather, what would it take not to? nt

[SweetLeftFoot]

42. To sack Iran

... a leader of devastating strategic and military skill ... a man capable of leading his nation united and strong to hell and back ... someone like Alexander The Great.

Needless to say, that man who is your President disnae fit the the bill.

[NuttyFluffers]

43. i dig the warning "a faked 9/11 is coming" idea

"I highly recommend telling all your friends and family (especially the wing-nuts), that something TERRIBLE is going to happen to get us into Iran."

1 of 2 things happens. there'll be those who'll think we're crazy (too late, some already think so. they can sit and spin for all i care) and then either
1. an attack will come, but since the word was out for so long people will immediately suspect this gov't (and rightfully so) and get seriously pissed off
or
2. an attack will be averted because the 'word on the street' is too pervasive and it'd be too obvious to perform this tactic, thus sparing innocent lives all around and forcing the criminals to tip their hand when they attack iran. they'll be transparently seen for what they are.

cool, i see no downside to this idea. casually drop the 'it's coming' bomb in your next conversation. it covers all bases and has the potential to save lives, at the expense of personal credibility. meh, rumors hurt, but i'm not above using them to keep people safe.
"a faked 9/11 is coming,"
"you lie! you're crazy! why?!"
"so we can go to war with iran"
"no way!"
"fine, don't believe me. let's see if i'm wrong."

besides, you can just blame it on your poor precognition skills. no one expects someone to see into the future perfectly. if they ask you your sources (ha ha, yeah right! only smart people do that!), shrug and say, "i have a gut feeling."

[The Doctor.]

49. YOU GOT IT!!!!

That's the plan - make it NOT happen or create the "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" heard 'round the world.

I have no problem saying, "oops, my bad."

[NuttyFluffers]

54. ;) it might've been rather oblique the first time around.

a lot of people seemed rather fixated on other details instead of the 'meat' of the idea. either that or they are far more subtle than i could figure out.

sometimes, when in doubt, direct expression is nice -- so i took the plunge and see if my take was right. seems like it was. think it's a great idea, too.

words have power, and hopefully this time it might save lives. even if it just keeps people in a heightened state of alert it just might, just might, prevent a disaster being pulled off. especially since there's this weird lulling in security being fostered by the gov't lately... there's no real downside to this.

[noonwitch]

46. I don't think the US will sack Iran-it's more likely we'd fund opposition

and arm them too, of course. There are a lot of Iranians who are not happy living in a theocracy, and even more who want free trade with the West.

Unless some emergency did arise, like a particularly insane iman gets hold of a former USSR-made nuclear missle, and targets an american city or Israel.

[The Doctor.]

50. that's what we're working on now... nt

[leesa]

55. Attacking Iraq will not save the dollar nor will it maintain leverage over

our creditors. Where did you come up with that??

[The Doctor.]

58. Explain. n/t

[LibertyorDeath]

56. I tell everyone within ear shot that 9 /11 got the US into Iraq

the next 9/11 will get the US into Iran.

and so on. Wonder how many 9/11's it will take to secure enough control over the Worlds Oil supply.

[NNadir]

63. We will NOT sack Iran, anymore than we "sacked" Iraq.

We will get our asses kicked, just as we are getting our asses kicked in Iraq.

We will lose everything in this country, which is exactly what we deserve.

[sarcasmo]

64. WWIII starts when Israel attacks Iran with our OK.

If an attack on Iran happens it will be WWIII. It will not surprise me if an Iran attack happens that more drama will be brought here to the shores of the good ole USA. My guess is China will not put up with our crap anymore and make Pearl Harbor look like nothing.

[BlueManDude]

66. As long as William Kristol leads the first brigade in I'm all for it n/t

[googly]

70. Iran and Syria are a given, now that Bush has been re-inaugurated