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

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

Jews Against Zionism

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zionism.html

Contrary to the propaganda put out by Israel's supporters, Israel is NOT supported by the majority of the world's Jewish people. Ariel Sharon does not speak for all Jewish people. And being anti-Israel is not "anti-Semitic"

I wonder if these Jews are "anti-semitic" as well.

Defintion of Semitic: relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

It appears that Britain, France, Germany, and Spain are also "dragging their feet" on Iran.

What? .. no "coalition of the willing"?

US accuses allies of dragging their feet over Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...2575797,00.html

Divisions are emerging in the West’s united front towards Iran with fears being voiced over the aggressive military posture adopted by America, while European allies are accused by the US of dragging their feet.
A diplomatic source in Wash-ington toldThe Times: “It is difficult to imagine Bush and Cheney leaving office without resolving the Iranian issue, if necessary, by force.”

Although the prospect of “precipitate action” by the US is discounted widely, some Western governments are said to be alarmed at events spiral-ling out of control.

Last week Mr Bush authorised US troops to “kill or capture” Iranians found operating inside Iraq’s borders. This week he reiterated that the US “will respond firmly” if Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. He emphasised that did not necessarily mean that he was planning to “invade Iran” and that the US is still pursuing a negotiated settlement through the United Nations to eliminate Tehran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme.

But there are fears that the tough new US approach, which included the arrest this month of five Iranian officials in the Iraqi city of Irbil, could trigger a new confrontation.

Reza Zakeri, the director of strategic studies in the Iranian President’s office, has said that Tehran may retaliate by capturing American soldiers.

“Abducting a US soldier in uniform is less expensive than buying a low-quality product made in China,” he said. “It would not be difficult to capture blond men with blue eyes wearing a military uniform. It would just be necessary to open a wallet and be generous.”

US Administration officials have expressed frustration with countries such as Britain, France, Germany and Spain whom they accuse of failing to isolate Iran financially. EU governments have provided the regime with billions of dollars in loan guarantees in recent years and have been slow to act against Iranian banks accused by the US of funding terrorism or financing missile programmes.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

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.

I would certainly balk at the use of the term "masters" and other such problematic terminology (use of which makes it very easy to dismiss any valid points the user may have), but, as I said elsewhere:

To describe the escalating drumbeat for war against Iran as a "Jewish conspiracy" is foolish, but not wholly without merit. The Jewish community is probably divided as anyone else on this issue. But the fact remains that there is a major effort underway to push Israel into war with Iran with or without America's permission and/or participation.

Doe sthat make me a racist anti-Semite? (Actually I'm not sure I want an answer. In some circles, I would be considered as such for making such statements)

blackascoal · January 31, 2007

The American people do not support ANY attacks on Iran.

Americans Rule Out Air Strikes, Invasion of Iran

October 25, 2006

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13579

- Many adults in the United States reject a conflict against Iran, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates published in Newsweek. 54 per cent of respondents oppose air strikes against military targets and suspected nuclear sites in Iran, while 76 per cent believe the U.S. should not send ground troops to take control of the country.

Air strikes against military targets and suspected nuclear sites in Iran

38% - Support

54% - Oppose

8% - Not Sure

Sending in U.S. ground troops to take control of the country

18% - Support

76% - Oppose

6% - Not Sure

If the American people do not support any attack on Iran .. American politicians, on both sides of the political aisle, do not support any attack on Iran .. and most other governments do not support any attack on Iran .. who does?

Catchme · 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?

It doesn't.

The FBI investigation into Israeli espionage agents in the Pentagon is part of a major struggle between prominent Zionists in the Pentagon and the US security apparatus. Ever since the Bush regime came to power there has been a fierce political and organizational war between the Pentagon Zionists and their militarist collaborators, on the one hand, and the professional military and intelligence apparatus, on the other. This conflict has manifested itself in a series of major issues including the war in the Middle East, the rational for war, the relationship between Israel and the US, the strategy for empire, as well as tactical issues like the size of military force needed for colonial wars and the nature of colonial occupation. From 9/11/2001 to the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon Zionists and the civilian militarists had the upper hand: they marginalized the CIA and established their own intelligence services to “cook the data”, they pushed through the doctrine of sequential wars, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq and projecting wars with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. The Pentagon Zionists increased Israel’s power in the Middle East and promoted its expansionist colonization of Palestine, at the expense of US soldiers, budget busting expenditures and CIA objections.

Treason in High Places

The presidency was once filled by Zionist legends and revered statesman. Albert Einstein declined an invitation to serve as the nation's first president, with the job eventually going to the scientist Chaim Weizmann, a Zionist leader who was instrumental in the creation of the Jewish state.

Israel Zionist government

Israeli politics is dominated by Zionist parties which traditionally fall into three camps, the first two being the largest: Labor Zionism (which has social democrat colors), Revisionist Zionism (which shares some traits with tories or conservatives in other countries) and Religious Zionism (although there are several non Zionist Orthodox religious parties,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel

The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world.
In 1997, the total of US grants and loan guarantees to Israel was USD 5.5 billion; ie, USD 15,068,493 per day.

From 1949 to 1998, the US government gave USD 84.8 billion in foreign aid and other US federation grants to Israel. This is more than it gave to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean put together, whose combined total population is 1,054,000,000.

http://www.eroj.org/Palestina/USAid.htm

"The Zionists brought us to the Holocaust. It is well known that it was possible to redeem Jews from the Nazis with money, and save many hundreds of thousands of Jews in Hungary . . .
THE ZIONIST LEADERS WHO NOW SIT IN GOVERNMENT PREVENTED IT!"

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich (circa 1954)

White Doors · 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.

Well my point was that Saddam reacted the way that the American thought he would. You disagree?

Also, I think we are just talking semantics. preparing for and imminent are miles apart. I said 'credible' not imminent.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

Well my point was that Saddam reacted the way that the American thought he would. You disagree?

Not entirely. Obviously, given what we knew about Saddam, his going into exile was not really a consideration. And, also obviously, any invasion would have been met with some kind of resistance. But clearly, the extremely credible threat of invasion did not force Saddam to disclose the status of his WMD programs, which must mean Hussein did not view the threat as credible in the first place. Certainly the testimony of members of his regime would indicate he never believed the Americans would follow through on their threats. Which brings me back to my basic point that "project(ing) a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians" as a way of influencing their behaviour cannot be counted on.

Also, I think we are just talking semantics. preparing for and imminent are miles apart. I said 'credible' not imminent.

Wouldn't a threat necessarily be imminent in order to be seen as credible? "We're going to bomb you...someday" isn't exactly the way to light a fire under anyone.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

Well my point was that Saddam reacted the way that the American thought he would. You disagree?

Not entirely. Obviously, given what we knew about Saddam, his going into exile was not really a consideration. And, also obviously, any invasion would have been met with some kind of resistance. But clearly, the extremely credible threat of invasion did not force Saddam to disclose the status of his WMD programs, which must mean Hussein did not view the threat as credible in the first place. Certainly the testimony of members of his regime would indicate he never believed the Americans would follow through on their threats. Which brings me back to my basic point that "project(ing) a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians" as a way of influencing their behaviour cannot be counted on.

Also, I think we are just talking semantics. preparing for and imminent are miles apart. I said 'credible' not imminent.

Wouldn't a threat necessarily be imminent in order to be seen as credible? "We're going to bomb you...someday" isn't exactly the way to light a fire under anyone.

The ability and willingness to do so has to temper their actions. Obviously Iran knows of they push too hard for too long they risk losing all their nuclear research which they obviously have spent alot of money on.

I think with the Americans actions againt Iraq it makes it more likely that Iran will listen more closely to American posturing in the area. The ball is in Iran's court as it were.

Saddam's mistake was to project the UN's inaction on the Americans.

Catchme · January 31, 2007

The American people do not support ANY attacks on Iran.
If the American people do not support any attack on Iran .. American politicians, on both sides of the political aisle, do not support any attack on Iran .. and most other governments do not support any attack on Iran .. who does?

The Bush government and Zionist Israel, as out lined on the former page.

Black Dog · January 31, 2007

The ability and willingness to do so has to temper their actions. Obviously Iran knows of they push too hard for too long they risk losing all their nuclear research which they obviously have spent alot of money on. I think with the Americans actions againt Iraq it makes it more likely that Iran will listen more closely to American posturing in the area. The ball is in Iran's court as it were.

See and here's another issue: Iran could also look at the situation in Iraq and say "These dinks have their hands full, there's no frigging way they will step to us." In fact, I would even say that the Iraq lesson means Iran has very likely accepted the possibility of a military strike against their nuke program and is preparing for it. Basically, as Iran seems pretty set on their nuke program (as you imply), they will do their utmost to preserve it even in the face of military threats. In other words, it's very possible that the more credible the threat, the more instrangient Iran will behave and the more likely a strike will come.

Canadian Blue · January 31, 2007

Well the only person I have seen supporting a war on Iran is Kristol, and I doubt many people support him, even in the conservative element of society. I don't see how a war with Iran is even possible, the American's have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, so why would they want to open up a third front.

Even if Bush did want to invade Iran, Congress could cut funding from the invasion.

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.

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

Are you saying that you believe Iran is responsible? I prefer not to believe the US on this regardless of how they profess it's true. We all remember ripping babies from incubators and throwing them out of windows? And the masses of tanks lined up at Saudi Arabia's border? Or Colin Powell's "proof" at the UN? The USA has cried wolf a few times too often to be taken seriously.

Blackascoal is right. Any country has an obligation to protect itself. The way the US behaves it is only prudent to want nuclear weapons in order to discourage attacks. That said, I prefer Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons but it isn't for USA to decide just as it wasn't for Iran to decide when USA developed nuclear armaments.

Catchme · February 1, 2007

'Fortunata' date='Jan 31 2007, 05:58 PM' post='181532'
Are you saying that you believe Iran is responsible? I prefer not to believe the US on this regardless of how they profess it's true. We all remember ripping babies from incubators and throwing them out of windows? And the masses of tanks lined up at Saudi Arabia's border? Or Colin Powell's "proof" at the UN? The USA has cried wolf a few times too often to be taken seriously.

The USA and Israel have wanted at Iran for a long time, the supporters are there through all levels of the Bush admin, many more so than Kristol. There are links showing more than Kristol on this very thread. And in the israel thinking of bombing Iran thread.

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush's new strategy for the Iraq war calls for clamping down on what the United States sees as Iran and Syria's support for insurgents and trying to get more help from American allies in the region.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/11/...raq-Mideast.php

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.

While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:

"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .

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

Last but not least for tonite, what's the strategic implication of the recent US Navy carrier deployment announcements to all this? Obviously, as we have been reporting, the professionals have been warning the White House and associated neo-cons that any actual military action against Iran itself runs a huge risk of effective Iranian retaliation against US interests, allied shipping, and oil.
We asked a friend out on the West Coast for his assessment of the new deployments, which confirms the actions ARE aimed at Iran, but in a balanced way, all things considered. For something really "up", he warns, watch to see a change in deploying the Nimitz:

Carrier USS John C. Stennis today (16 Jan 07) departs home port Bremerton, Washington, en route to San Diego to pick up its carrier air wing before sailing west to the Persian Gulf.

There, the Stennis strike group will join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower strike group. The Eisenhower recently has been operating off Somalia.

(Stennis strike group had been scheduled to cover routinely for USS Kitty Hawk in the western Pacific this spring while the Yokohama-based carrier underwent repairs. The Pentagon announced 20 Dec 2006 that Stennis strike group would sail early, deploying instead to the Gulf. The Pentagon announced 11 Jan 07 USS Ronald Reagan would skip normal work-up phases and deploy within several weeks to provide the routine coverage in western Pacific during Kitty Hawk's repairs.)

Last week the Pentagon also announced deployment to the Persian Gulf region of a Patriot battalion of the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, which is primarily suited for defense against short-range ballistic missile attack. The primary ballistic missile threat in theater is Iran.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2007_01.php

GostHacked · February 1, 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.

What is racist about that? Zionism is a movement. Also they are a group of people. I can hate the group for their actions, but like individuals of the group and have nothing really against Jewish people. Extremist Jews, I will consider Zionists. Does that make me a racist? If so, that makes you quite ignorant.

Actually it seems like the Americans are using Israel as a talking point. If Israel is getting attacked, then America is being attacked.

Black Dog

See and here's another issue: Iran could also look at the situation in Iraq and say "These dinks have their hands full, there's no frigging way they will step to us." In fact, I would even say that the Iraq lesson means Iran has very likely accepted the possibility of a military strike against their nuke program and is preparing for it. Basically, as Iran seems pretty set on their nuke program (as you imply), they will do their utmost to preserve it even in the face of military threats. In other words, it's very possible that the more credible the threat, the more instrangient Iran will behave and the more likely a strike will come.

Could be part of the propaganda too. Egging Iran on TO fight. 'Bring it on', in other words. So when Iran and the US military occupation in Iraq start at it, it will give Israel the oppourtunity to throw a few tactical strikes in Iran. The US would be able to occupy the Iranian military in order for this to happen. Possible? I think so.

Read my taglines people. Read them and understand them.

jdobbin · February 1, 2007

Associated Press put out a report in the last hour indicating the possibility of an accidental war is high.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16911972/

AGHDAD, Iraq - Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.

weaponeer · February 1, 2007

You all sure make an invasion of Iran sound easy...

The US will most likely not hit Iran. They could, they could hurt them very badly, & I don't mean nukes.

Invade Iran, why. Iran has enough of it's own problems, their youth are sick & tired of religous idiots running their lives. Iran responds to pressure, just look how the girl sentenced to die was released today. I have no doubt the US, France & UK have "people" inside Iran fuelling a resistance.

If Iran nukes Israel, most of these dummies who supoport Iran, only because they hate the US, will be shocked beyond belief. The US will level Iran in retaliaion.

blackascoal · February 1, 2007

You all sure make an invasion of Iran sound easy...
The US will most likely not hit Iran. They could, they could hurt them very badly, & I don't mean nukes.

Invade Iran, why. Iran has enough of it's own problems, their youth are sick & tired of religous idiots running their lives. Iran responds to pressure, just look how the girl sentenced to die was released today. I have no doubt the US, France & UK have "people" inside Iran fuelling a resistance.

If Iran nukes Israel, most of these dummies who supoport Iran, only because they hate the US, will be shocked beyond belief. The US will level Iran in retaliaion.

It's a very good thing that the vast majority of Americans are a lot smarter than this.

Black Dog · February 1, 2007

If Iran nukes Israel, most of these dummies who supoport Iran, only because they hate the US, will be shocked beyond belief. The US will level Iran in retaliaion.

Who is supporting Iran? Anyway, your statement above is self-refutating. Everyone knows that Iran wil be destroyed if it ever uses a nuke, which is why people liek me say that a nuclear Iran, unpleasant a thought as it is, does not pose an actual danger. It's the people who are pushing for war (and any strike will msot certainly result in some form of retaliation) who are fostering irrational fears to push their insane agenda. Indeed, there's simply no rational explanation for wanting to increase the level of bloodshed. Unles of course the idea is to bring about a Muslim Holocaust, something I'm sure a number of posters on this board would applaud.

weaponeer · February 1, 2007

That a really simplistic way of looking at it. Iran nuking the US is NOT likely, Iran "passing along" nuke material to terrorists is VERY possible.

You may not care about a nuclear Iran, I on the other hand see it as a real danger. AQ with nuke, great, just great!!!

Guthrie · February 1, 2007

That a really simplistic way of looking at it. Iran nuking the US is NOT likely, Iran "passing along" nuke material to terrorists is VERY possible.
You may not care about a nuclear Iran, I on the other hand see it as a real danger. AQ with nuke, great, just great!!!

it is even more likely that Georgia, Russia or N Korea will pass along nuke materials -- it would make absolutely no sense to attack Iran for fear of nuclear weapons --- but certainly, the current US administration is very big on peddling fear as a way of getting the masses to sign up to their otherwise dubious adventure schemes

weaponeer · February 1, 2007

Yes,

Well the left is exceptionally good at telling people "you have nothing to fear, trust us". Of couse they are nowhere to be found when it all comes crashing down. Hitler was someone we could do business with, PEACE IN OUR TIME. Whatever!!!

You right, we live in a peaceful world where everybody has our best interests at heart. Only the Americans have bad intentions, everybody else is a victim. The left will save us, by doing nothing and telling us it will all be OK.... :rolleyes:

Black Dog · February 1, 2007

That a really simplistic way of looking at it. Iran nuking the US is NOT likely, Iran "passing along" nuke material to terrorists is VERY possible.
You may not care about a nuclear Iran, I on the other hand see it as a real danger. AQ with nuke, great, just great!!!

No it's not. Now, I'd be worried about Iran's ability, as a new nuclear state, to maintain the security of it's nuclear program (look at Pakistan), but I would certainly not be concerned about them giving or selling a weapon to non-state actors like Hizbullah (Al Qaeda is not even a possibility: they're Sunnis). First, no nation is going to expend time, money and political/diplomatic capital on developing a bomb just to hand it over to some unaccountable group. It defeats the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon in the first place, sincs the primary value of a nuke lies in its ability to deter attacks, not to mention the status symbol factor. Finally, if Hizbullah were to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv out of the blue, who do you think would get blamed and suffer the consequenses? Iran would certainly be aware of that.

Well the left is exceptionally good at telling people "you have nothing to fear, trust us". Of couse they are nowhere to be found when it all comes crashing down. Hitler was someone we could do business with, PEACE IN OUR TIME. Whatever!!!
You right, we live in a peaceful world where everybody has our best interests at heart. Only the Americans have bad intentions, everybody else is a victim. The left will save us, by doing nothing and telling us it will all be OK....

Whereas the right wing fear brigade would have us disregard 60 years of deterrance theory and thousands of years of history in order to buy into their theory that a nuclear Iran alone will behave unlike any other nuclear state in the past because, well, they are just crazy.

weaponeer · February 1, 2007

Of course the USA, Russia, China, India some of the nuke nations are threatening to "wipe a country off the map".

This is typical left wing BS, and cowardice. Dealing with Iran is too hard, someone might get hurt. Lets leave them alone, then in 10 years when they have given nukes to terrorist or nuked Israel, we can blame the Americans for "not having done anything to stop this". :rolleyes:

Black Dog · February 1, 2007

Of course the USA, Russia, China, India some of the nuke nations are threatening to "wipe a country off the map".

If Iran's leadership is crazy and irrational, then why accept their public proclimations as rational policy statements? As I've said before, why believe the "wipe Israel off the map" stuff, but not believe the "our nuclear program is for peaceful purposes" stuff? Is Ahlamijohnjacobjingleheimerschmidt credible or is he insane? Maybe he's insanely credible? :unsure:

The Iranian mullahs have been in charge for almost 30 years now: in that time, have they undertaken any actions that could be seen as irrational and contrary to their self-interest? I sure can't think of any big ones, so I'm not sure why the sudden apperance of a nuclear warhead or two on the scene would transform a repressive regime that would appear to really, really like being able to boss a bunch of people around into a group of suicidal crazypeople.

This is typical left wing BS, and cowardice. Dealing with Iran is too hard, someone might get hurt. Lets leave them alone, then in 10 years when they have given nukes to terrorist or nuked Israel, we can blame the Americans for "not having done anything to stop this".

Actually, the reason why I and I'm sure most lefties oppose a military strike on Iran (the only option you are proposing here) is that it would make things worse in the region and thus be contrary to our self-interest (can you say $100 a barrell oil? Can you say increased threat of terrorism?). The enormous immorality of such an action and its inevitable consequenses is the cherry on top. In short: I think your pants-wetting over the extremely unlikely prospect of an Iranian nuke being used is sad.