DUers thoughts on prospective war with Iran?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

If the neocons indeed do lead us into war against Iran by June 2005 as Sy Hersh and now Scott Ritter are both suggesting, I had two questions for DUers (informal sample of opinion):

1. How do you think the war would proceed? and

2. What would you do in response? (protest, get massively depressed, emigrate, invest in tracts of land in S. American Andean villages)

My own 2 cents on part (1) at least: I'd surmise that the war would start with so-called "targeted air strikes" but that Iran would quickly take the hint and launch a forward attack on US bases in Iraq to forestall an actual US invasion of Iran. Although we'd have massive advantages in technology and conventional arms, the gap would be much less than in Iraq and the Iranians would give us tremendous misery, shooting down enough of our fighters and hitting enough of our surface ships-- and taking out early ground force invasions-- to thwart an initial invasion. At which point Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and the rest of the gang of idiots realize that we're on the path to humiliating defeat and manufacture some excuse to bring back the draft. Dollar collapses, debt bubble bursts-- the nasty stuff hits the fan. What are people's thoughts on this?

[SnoopDog]

1. We need to do EVERYTHING in our power...

to stop it...

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

4. I agree totally, but

how to go about it? Do you think that the prospect of an Iran war would be scary enough to make street protests effective this time? Or would the "cakewalkers" succeed in siren-songing the media into fantasizing about grateful flowers at the troops' feet yet again?

[SnoopDog]

9. I do not know my friend...

In the 60's people protested. It has been stated that they protested because of the draft - a draft to place THEM into Vietnam.

What to do today? F*ck if I know..

Not only is Iran in the mix now - what about the fact that our government is taken over by our own homegrown terrorists.

Eventually, the citizens will not take it - circa 1770 revolt - is what may be required.

I believe in peace - but self perseverance or 'country/citizens perseverance' will prevail.

It is truly that bad....

[chomskysright]

2. its a hallmark sign of Fascism, American style.....

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_26_dneiwert_archive.html#109563628314780505

These "mobilizing passions," mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism's foundations:

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

3. "taking out early ground force invasions"

sorry-- should read "taking out early probing thrusts on the ground from Iraq and Afghanistan" to test Iran's national defenses. The essence of the idea being that Iran is strong enough to frustrate the air cover and initial salients that would be needed for a massive ground attack-- thus effectively aborting an invasion by the US (and whoever gets drawn in with us in the process).

[kentuck]

5. Right now, it's mostly saber-rattling...

By George W and the chicken hawks. However, it could deteriorate into a war in a short time. But, right now, the White House is primarily focused on establishing a government in Iraq. They do not need the Shiites from Iran or the insurgents allies from Syria messing up whatever little progress they may make in that war-torn country.

Privately, they are very concerned that Putin and Russia will arm Iran with nuclear weapons. Hence the awkward threats toward Putin in the last couple of days. The White House does not need any interference from any of Iraq's neighbors.

That is why they have been talking so boldly to Syria. They wish to seal off the borders between Syria and Iraq. They demand that Syria withdraw from Lebanon. This may work against Syria but it is doubtful that any of the saber-rattling will work against Iran or Putin...

[latteromden]

6. I'll be in Italy then. I think I'll probably just STAY there, honestly.

[bluestateguy]

7. reply

1) Under the guise of Iran having illegal "nuculer" weapons there will be at least a year or more of chest thumping and phony diplomatic efforts to resolve the trumped up crisis. Weapons inspectors who proclaim that Iran's activities are legal will be either ignored or discredited (I could see some UN inspector being called a child molester by a conservative columnist, for example). We'll be told that surely this time the intelligence agencies have learned their lessons, and double checked their evidence and that war with Iran is a last resort. The prospect of war with Iran will be kept in the spotlight through the 2006 elections, thus making domestic issues much less important. This time Britain will not go along, and just as quickly as they embraced him, American conservatives will throw Tony Blair overboard and link him to the "appeasers" in France, Germany and Spain. In the end, the US may rely on Israel to strike first as a proxy, which will prompt a retalliation by Iran against US forces in Iraq. Iraqi Shiites will support Iran; Al Sadr will reactivate his militia and Sistani will declare holy war. There will also be a draft, maybe even before all this takes place.

2) Get arrested for peaceful civil disobedience.

[KoKo]

14. Yes...having Negroponte in place gets them away from that tricky question

of "faulty intelligence" once again from the CIA, doesn't it. He will be swiftly confirmed by the Senate...and has "everyone's" approval, so it will be easy to convince most Americans that the "Mushroom Cloud" is "really, real" this time...and all systems will be "GO!" They will explain it later...or they might not even bother to explain it. :shrug:

[Catamount]

8. Yes Prevention! I personally feel very sick

when I allow myself to read your questions, let alone try to figure out the details.
We must inform and unite everyone to prevent this crazed adm. from acting.
They will stop at nothing to fulfil their missions, and hasten the demise of our planet, in order to achieve Rapture, including nuclear mayhem.
May the gods help us all!

[Chipper Chat]

10. Right now Sickretary of State Condi Rice is the bullhorn -

testing the waters to see if an attack on Iran will fly with the american public. A war-weary populace is too pooped to protest, but the fundie churches are rabble-rousing: "we must back oUr lEader in his quest to rid the world of sand nig***s - we are on a holy crusade - it is God's will!" The red states will follow our NeoconLeaders into the hot gates of Hell, praying all the way that they dont come face to face with two members of the same sex that want to get married! So draw your sword, Dubya, and bring on Iran.
TIP: better buy some euros.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Smirking Chimp had...

at least one interesting thread on this.

As with Iraq and Afghanistan, air power wil bring them to their knees almost immediately. They have hardened and hidden a lot of targets, but they have no real defenses against our missiles and bombers.

Then what?

Iran has a lot more people and territory than Iraq, and they actually elected their leadership, even though a lot of them aren't all that happy with it. And they haven't spent 10 years being ruined by sanctions and no-fly zones.

Seems to me that insurgency would be a lot fiercer than it is in Iraq.

[K-W]

12. Scott Ritter says it's going down exactly like Iraq, except

They do not intend to put troops on the ground. We will take over thier skies and bomb their military and civillian infrastructure to the ground.

The stated reason would be to allow the Iranian people to free themselves of the oppressive government, this is obviously horrifically unlikely and they must know it, but it is unclear, at least to me, what they actually expect to accomplish with this plan.

My best guess at the moment is that we intend to provoke an incident. That seems to be where Scott Ritter is heading with his thought processes as well. The likely response to a US attack would be a strike on US troops in Iraq and on Isreal.

If the people in power know this... and it certainly is possible they are so crazy they dont... they must be trying to force other nations to take sides in the war, knowing that other developed nations may not support the US but are as scared of a populist or theological reordering of Middle Eastern leadership. They may not trust the US, but they trust us more than Islamic religious leaders.

I hope I'm just being paranoid and these people just have entirely unrealistic understandings of the middle east.

[KoKo]

15. The only disadvantage we have ...maybe..is that our economy is so weak

that the rest of the world sees this and will "pull the plug" on buying our bonds. China and Japan are the key. If they cut off the funding which is holding up our Real Estate Market...then Chimp will be truly on a Kamakazi Mission if he does this.

It remains to be seen how strong the World Bank and IMF are in supporting Bush's new "Folly." Since China needs to export to us in a big way and Japan to a much lesser extent...then he might be able to coerce them into agreeing to keep buying our treasury notes.

But, since Bushies have f**ked up everything they touch and made a disaster out of Iraq it seems he has lost some credibility. Plus Iran trades with Russia and France and some with Germany... How the hell is he going to explain this? What carrots do we have left to throw the Europeans at this point? Pooty Poot might be in his pocket...but I just don't see the others coming around so easily except if we make it VERY worthwhile.. Carlyle Group? Arms for Free...Free Planes and Nukes?

It's sickening isn't it. That we are even having to think about this...as we go to work, try to keep our families together and face the outsourcing, downsizing, jobless US economy that we are being treated like some kind of idiots who just accept everything those assholes do....

[KoKo]

13. I would hope we could stop this somehow. But Congress gave him a

"blank check" to invade wherever he wants. Most in a "bi-partisan" effort support "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike" so I assume he would do it swiftly and we would wake up to a CNN/MSNBC announcement that Bush had launched "pre-emptive strikes against Iran and Syria overnight."

It would be too late for us Protestors to organize...and there would be nothing we could do. It would be another "Shock and Awe" without the benefit of negotiations with the UN which gave us time to try to do something when he did this with Iraq.

I have a feeling that he wouldn't get the great reception he did last time but the ignorance of my fellow citizens always amazes me...so I don't know what would happen. He'd explain it away and we would do more United for Peace/A.N.S.W.E.R Marches in cities across America and the MSM wouldn't cover it...and we'd just go on with our lives holding "candlelight vigils" and posting here on DU..

What else can we do? It's out of our hands..but not out of our power to still show oppostion, no matter what the hell more evil he perpetuates around the world. :shrug:

[centerspectrum]

16. reply

I really hope cooler heads prevail and this war can be avoided.

Basically I don't trust Iran with nukes and I don't trust Bush,

which one is the lesser of two evils. God only knows.

[JHBowden]

17. I cautiously *support* it.

1.

I imagine events will unfold like this. Our vastly superior airforce will bomb them, and bomb them, and bomb them, destroying most, if not all of the designated nuclear sites and missile installations. Iran will then have a choice -- immediately retaliate, or turn the other cheek and strike us with proxy terrorists later. I suspect they will choose the former, firing missiles into Iraq and Israel.

Whether Iran is immediately invaded is less clear, though regime change is inevitable at this point. If Iran sends troops over the border into Iraq, militarily, the Iranian army and country is toast as they are automatically invaded. If they do not, the Americans will probably move slowly and see what happens, given the primary objective of fucking up Iran's nuclear program will be achieved.

The human cost will likely be spelled out in the refugees we create and the chaos that may ensue in Iran, especially if we move in with some type of force and remove the Mullahs from power. This cost is better than having Tel Aviv or Los Angeles incinerated.

2.

I wouldn't do anything in response to this besides watch the news. While many of my fellow Democrats have stated that Iran was a greater "threat" than Saddam, I suspect they really didn't mean it. I do. Just as I wouldn't trust Falwell or Robertson with a nuclear weapon, I do not trust the fundamentalists in Iran with them, especially given their ties to Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, et cetera. Some think that American religious fundamentalists are wackos bent on self-destruction, while Middle-Eastern fundamentalists care about their self-preservation and Reason. I think all religious fundamentalists are wacky, and allowing them to have nukes is **not** a strategic option for us.

[K-W]

19. Hopefully imperialist hawks like you can be stopped.

Before you get use all killled.

[JHBowden]

20. I don't support imperialism.

I hate to differ with you guys. I opposed the Iraq war and supported Dean in the primaries. However, I just can't wrap my brain around how letting Iran have nukes is rational.

Bush and Cheney may support imperialism (I do not), but the crux of my argument is based on the real nuclear weapons threat. Iran has everything Iraq did not -- a real nuclear program, ties to international terrorists, and is committed to the destruction of Israel and the "Great Satan" -- the United States.

[alfredo]

18. If bush doesn't move,

Israel will push the issue.