If you thought Iraq was a "cakewalk", try attacking Iran

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

While America is still bogged down in the worst military blunder in American history, many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters. But the American people aren't buying it and neither are many in the House and Senate. They recognize that any attack on Iran is a far more daunting challenge than attacking a smaller Iraq that has been under sanctions for more than a decade and was forced to fight back with improvised weapons .. and where America will still go down to defeat. They recognize that if the US attacks Iran, Russia and China will be involved and the price of oil will skyrocket through the roof.

Senators warn against war with Iran

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_co/us_iran

Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.
"What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place," Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

Obama, a candidate for president in 2008, warned during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that senators of both parties will demand "clarity and transparency in terms of U.S. policy so that we don't repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past," a reference to the faulty intelligence underlying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate, asked Negroponte if he thinks the United States is edging toward a military confrontation with Tehran. In response, Negroponte repeated President Bush's oft-stated preference for diplomacy, although he later added, "We don't rule out other possibilities."

A day earlier, the president acknowledged skepticism concerning U.S. intelligence about Iran, because Washington was wrong in accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "I'm like a lot of Americans that say, 'Well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in Iran,'" the president said.

Senators including Hagel, George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., sounded frustrated with the administration's decision not to engage Iran and fellow outcast Syria in efforts to reduce sectarian violence in Iraq.

Catchme · January 31, 2007

They are going to.....and canada is going to be there right along with them, I am sure.

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17206.htm

Some may not like the location of this article, too bad, it is a comprehensive view of what is going on in the USA regarding Iran, written by an American. Plus there are some very good links off of his article.

A U.S. view: A new quiet American is born
Well, it's not only Congress that is afraid to tell the truth and forcefully oppose President George W. Bush's escalation in Iraq and coming attack on Iran...

And Americans, who forget much and quickly, will remember the post 9/11 reactions of the government and law enforcement against those who made intemperate remarks in health clubs who later received knocks on their door from the FBI.

After all, under a Patriot Act that the Democrats have shown no stomach for rescinding, if the President can declare anyone, even an American citizen, as an enemy combatant, why tempt following Jose Padilla into that bad night of Guantanamo?

So even now, no matter how much our consciences bother us about how we were lied into this war, no matter even if we see the real cost of this war both to the Iraqis and ourselves, even though our still small voice looks at our draft age children and yearns to publicly speak out against the coming nuclear madness with Iran, many of us keep a certain stillness, a certain restraint.

And any meaningful action against American militarism runs smack into the manufactured reaction against the “Vietnam syndrome” when America's soldiers were derided for being asked to win a war that Jane Fonda, et al, helped lose. The soldiers who volunteer to fight for the empire must therefore also be lionized since they are just doing their patriotic duty to keep us safe.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

"many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters."

Nice!

We may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and we should be making plans for it if Iran continues to refute the mandate the the UN. You disagree and think that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? If so, to what end?

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

We may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and we should be making plans for it if Iran continues to refute the mandate the the UN.

Why is military action the only recourse? There's an old Confucian saying that says something along the lones of "superior man can acheive his ends without violence." Given that military action would likely do more harm than good, it should be considered as an option only if all othe ravenues are exhausted and even then, only in the face of a genuine threat.

You disagree and think that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? If so, to what end?

Again, the the maddening assumption that all the world's ills are within our power to fix crops up. To say we should "allow" Iran to have nuclear weapons indicates that we have some control over the outcome. The better way to look at it is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are unlikely to be curbed by threats, bullying or airstrikes. Indeed, the use of force against Iran is more likely to encourage them to accelerate the development of a weapons programme and would most certainly strengthen the hardline elements that some fear would actually use a nuke.

Fortunata · January 31, 2007

Already the rhetoric is being ramped up, Iran warned not to interfere in Iraq; Iranians are "thought" to be behind an attack on US forces:

Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html

The same type of propoganda has been used throughout history to get the public revved against a perceived foe or threat.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

Why is military action the only recourse? There's an old Confucian saying that says something along the lones of "superior man can acheive his ends without violence." Given that military action would likely do more harm than good, it should be considered as an option only if all othe ravenues are exhausted and even then, only in the face of a genuine threat.

I agree 100%. It is the last resort. You have to project a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians however otherwise the preferable method of diplomacy will likely not work and ironically make the military strike more likely. neat how that works eh?

Again, the the maddening assumption that all the world's ills are within our power to fix crops up. To say we should "allow" Iran to have nuclear weapons indicates that we have some control over the outcome. The better way to look at it is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are unlikely to be curbed by threats, bullying or airstrikes. Indeed, the use of force against Iran is more likely to encourage them to accelerate the development of a weapons programme and would most certainly strengthen the hardline elements that some fear would actually use a nuke.

Walk softly and carry big stick.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

Already the rhetoric is being ramped up, Iran warned not to interfere in Iraq; Iranians are "thought" to be behind an attack on US forces:
Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html

The same type of propoganda has been used throughout history to get the public revved against a perceived foe or threat.

So you are saying that the report is 100% false? ie: It's not propaganda if it's true.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

I agree 100%. It is the last resort. You have to project a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians however otherwise the preferable method of diplomacy will likely not work and ironically make the military strike more likely. neat how that works eh?

Projecting a credible threat is far easier said than done. The fact that a military strike against Iran is not guaranteed to end their nuclear program and that such a course of action would probably do more harm than good to western interests in the region and abroad complicate matters. For one thing: Iran would be aware of those factors, which and would no doubt have contingency plans in place to mitigate the threat.

I would also dispute that notion that a threat is neccesary for diplomacy (or other methods) to work: Iraq is a good case study on the dangers and complexities of counting on someone reacting to your actions in the way you want or expect them to.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

I agree 100%. It is the last resort. You have to project a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians however otherwise the preferable method of diplomacy will likely not work and ironically make the military strike more likely. neat how that works eh?

Projecting a credible threat is far easier said than done. The fact that a military strike against Iran is not guaranteed to end their nuclear program and that such a course of action would probably do more harm than good to western interests in the region and abroad complicate matters. For one thing: Iran would be aware of those factors, which and would no doubt have contingency plans in place to mitigate the threat.

I would also dispute that notion that a threat is neccesary for diplomacy (or other methods) to work: Iraq is a good case study on the dangers and complexities of counting on someone reacting to your actions in the way you want or expect them to.

Well it worked well when Israel took out Saddam's nuclear plant many moons ago.

No one in the USA is looking at a full scale invasion of Iran with any seriousness. (they would have to institute a draft for sure) They need to be prepared to take out the program and planning for it is wise especially because they knwo Iran is trying to protect their program from just such a strike.

PS: Are you saying that the USA was hoping that Saddam chose exile? i think events unfolded just the way the USA wanted as far as having a war with Iraq goes.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

Well it worked well when Israel took out Saddam's nuclear plant many moons ago.

What is the "it" you are referring to?

Anyway, it's foolish to expect a course of action from 25 years ago to have the same results today given the dizzying variety of different factors at play.

No one in the USA is looking at a full scale invasion of Iran with any seriousness. (they would have to institute a draft for sure) They need to be prepared to take out the program and planning for it is wise especially because they knwo Iran is trying to protect their program from just such a strike.

There's a difference between planning for the strike and being prepared for the consequenses. Again, we can look to Iraq (the invasion this time) as a prime example of the power of unintended consequenses.

PS: Are you saying that the USA was hoping that Saddam chose exile?

I'm saying the U.S. simply failed to take into account the fact that their messages might be interpreted a different manner than which they were intended. I don't think anyone discounted the credibility of the U.S.'s threat to invade Iraq, but somehow Saddam did and based his decisions on that assumption.

i think events unfolded just the way the USA wanted as far as having a war with Iraq goes

How do you mean?

White Doors · January 31, 2007

I'm saying the U.S. simply failed to take into account the fact that their messages might be interpreted a different manner than which they were intended. I don't think anyone discounted the credibility of the U.S.'s threat to invade Iraq, but somehow Saddam did and based his decisions on that assumption.

I disagree. I think they underestimated how many troops it would take to maintain security. They won the war easily but so far have lost the peace. Disbanding the Iraqi army outright comes to mind.

How do you mean?

I mean that the USA didn't want Saddam to go into hiding and surrender. They wanted combat to show their power off along with other reasons.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

I disagree. I think they underestimated how many troops it would take to maintain security. They won the war easily but so far have lost the peace. Disbanding the Iraqi army outright comes to mind.

I don't see how this speaks to my point, which is how Saddam preceived the U.S.'s threats and reacted to them. My point is simply that we cannot control how our messages are interpreted by others, so counting on them to interpret the message in precisely the way we mean it and responding accordingly is a recipe for disaster. WRT Iran, we may think that sending a message that a military strike is iminent will force Iran to acquiese to our demands, but they may decide on a different course of action such as digging in their heels and preparing to counter military action. Which could result in us not only failing to acheive the objective of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also having our interest in the region placed in greater danger.

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

"many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters."
Nice!

We may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and we should be making plans for it if Iran continues to refute the mandate the the UN. You disagree and think that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? If so, to what end?

Interesting how the UN is rejected by the right, but used as an excuse when it fits their agenda. If we are going to use the UN, shouldn't we be bombing Israel, who is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in history.

The reality is that America opened the Pandora's Box of nuclear weapons and EVERY nation on earth has a right, in fact, a duty, to protect itself from other nations who have them. Israel has plenty and has openly talked about attacking Iran. The US has openly talked about a pre-emptive "limited" nuclear strike against Iran and both nations continue to build and add to their nuclear arsenals. And, both nations were involved in the overthrow a Iran's democratically elected government. But you think Iran should do what? .. Sit back ands wait until they're attacked?

It's not a matter of if we should "allow" Iran to do what both the US and Israel have already done. It's not our choice to decide. Every nation has a right to protect itself. The only option we have is mutally assured destruction .. which seemed to work real well with the Soviet Union.

Iran has never been a threat to the US, but then again, neither was Iraq.

The American people aren't clamoring for a war with Iran. The Israeli government is.

Catchme · January 31, 2007

Now, they know they have to use nukes in Iran, as nothing else would work, and using nukes may not even. Notwithstanding of course is the fact that accusations against Iran are spurious at best.

People who would participate in the illegal use of nukes had better think about their actions

In the Nuremberg trials, 207 defendants were tried and 161 found guilty of at least one charge. Among the charges listed in Principle VI are "waging of a war of aggression," "wanton destruction not justified by military necessity," "committing acts of devastation," and "violations of the laws or customs of war." High- and low-ranking government officials, senior and junior commanding officers were tried and convicted.
Could American service members face such charges in the aftermath of nuclear attack on Iran? You be the judge. The B61-11 nuclear earth penetrator is deployed [.pdf] but has never been tested. Its effect could be much larger than predicted, as has happened in other cases. Predictions of the level of radioactive fallout are highly uncertain, as they depend on weather conditions and wind patterns. According to a 2005 study by the National Academy of Sciences, "the estimated number of casualties ranges over four orders of magnitude – from hundreds to over a million – depending on the combination of assumptions used." And the long-term health effects over periods of years or decades are even more difficult to estimate.

Let us not forget that the German government in the period 1933-1945 did not consider illegal many actions, which brings us to Principle II:

"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8678

The following links contain much information about the significant impacts on the world by the use of nukes. The lie that they would be deep enough to cause little fall out is simply NOT TRUE. In fact, we would not have to worry about GHG for a good long time as we would all be busy dying slowly. Those who are thinking to do this; Israel and the USA, and perhaps even the Harper government are bordering on insanity, or in the stages of complete insanity, IMV.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

M.Dancer · January 31, 2007

While America is still bogged down in the worst military blunder in American history, many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters.

Nothing like a little hate and racism in the afternoon.....

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

While America is still bogged down in the worst military blunder in American history, many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters.

Nothing like a little hate and racism in the afternoon.....

Is the Israeli government a race?

Are Zionists a race?

How does criticism of the Israeli government equate to racism?

M.Dancer · January 31, 2007

Okay my half sister's half literate foundling....it is okay to be a bigot against a group just as long as they aren't a unique race......

That means there has never been racism against the Irish...never been bigotry or hatred against the Italians...never been racism against the Jews?

Try peddling your tinfoil hat ZOG bullshit elsewhere....

jdobbin · January 31, 2007

We may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and we should be making plans for it if Iran continues to refute the mandate the the UN. You disagree and think that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? If so, to what end?

I think even American experts are saying they are years from having a nuclear weapon. You have a link that say they will have them sooner?

And if Iran is attacked, what is to prevent them from pouring into southern Iraq to take on U.S. troops in retaliation?

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

Okay my half sister's half literate foundling....it is okay to be a bigot against a group just as long as they aren't a unique race......
That means there has never been racism against the Irish...never been bigotry or hatred against the Italians...never been racism against the Jews?

Try peddling your tinfoil hat ZOG bullshit elsewhere....

"tin foil hat" .. that's deep.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Bigotry and hatred are not the same as racism.

Is homophobia racism?

Is the oppression of women "racism"?

There is nothing remotely racist about critcism of the Israeli government.

M.Dancer · January 31, 2007

There is nothing remotely racist about critcism of the Israeli government.

No of course, there absolutely nothing in code refering said Government of Israel as America's Zionist Masters.

You are a fraud.

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

It appears that the Bush Administration and Israel are also having problems selling their Iranian snake oil to european governments.

Rift looms as Europe resists US call

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rift-l...9919336430.html

European governments are resisting Bush Administration demands to curtail exports to Iran and to block transactions and freeze the assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say.
The dispute threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the US over Iran.

And Australia

It's business as usual for Australians trading with Iran

AUSTRALIAN companies can keep doing normal business with Iran, despite a warning from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for them not to do so.
Dr Rice has called on companies worldwide to reconsider doing business with Iran, and hinted at the possibility of more sanctions, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's refusal to halt the country's uranium enrichment program.

According to an English transcript of an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Dr Rice said: "I think people ought to think about the risk of doing business with Iran.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has issued a travel warning and advised Australians to exercise "a high degree of caution in Iran because of the threat of terrorist attack against Western interests".

But a DFAT spokesman said the Government had not advised Australian businesses to take a different approach in light of the Rice warning.

Australia and Iran have strong trade links. Australia's exports to Iran in 2005-06 totalled $348 million while imports from Iran were $37 million.

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

There is nothing remotely racist about critcism of the Israeli government.

No of course, there absolutely nothing in code refering said Government of Israel as America's Zionist Masters.

You are a fraud.

Sure .. that's "racist".

Definiton of racism: a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.

Since when did a religion become a race?

I'm done with this conversation.

Believe what you want.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

Can we keep the pissing matches to PM, or at least arrange it so it has some bearing on the topic? Pu-weeze?

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

Can we keep the pissing matches to PM, or at least arrange it so it has some bearing on the topic? Pu-weeze?

I'm done with it.

M.Dancer · January 31, 2007

Can we keep the pissing matches to PM, or at least arrange it so it has some bearing on the topic? Pu-weeze?

I would say that the strategy of the ultra extreme left to paint the Iran USA conflict as a scenario where the strings are being pulled by Jewish masters is extremely on the topic.

To ignore the false hood of that supposition is to tacitly acknowledge the racist aspect.

It is not news that the extreme left is anti semitic and will paint all there cause celebes in anti semetic colours believeing they get good milage from it and hiding behind the "but I'm just critising Israel" even though the language they use ("zionist masters") is decidedly hateful and meant to demonize not just the government of Israel, but all jews.

Ask BAC if he thinks israel helped the US blow up the twin towers on 9.11........