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

[GostHacked]

I don't know but they live in deserts. Without our money and food imports they'd be royally screwed. There's lots of places in the world to get oil. Plus biofuel is becoming very promising. You can run a diesel on straight up Canola oil. Canada doesn't need the middle east for anything. Just give them guns and let them kill each other.

Biofuel is a wasteful enterprise. First off you are using oil to plant/harvest/process netting a loss of consumable energy, compared to just using the oil to plant corn to eat. I think solar/wind/electric is the way to go. (remember the GM EV1?)

Iran does not need the greenback since it is trading all it's oil in Euros. If you want to do business in regards to oil with Iran, you deal in Euros. Who benefits from that anyways? Not the US that is for sure. Iraq was looking at switching to the Euro as well. In a way this really prevents the US from doing energy/oil related business in Iran.

Oh and the U.S. does have enough ground troops to invade Iran. Only a fraction of their armed forces is committed in Iraq/A-Stan. Using conventional tactics and deploying the remaining armed forces the U.S. would anhialate Iran.

Since the US has that many troops, tell me why they did not use enough troops to secure Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasions? And why are the Democrats blocking the resolution for more troops to be sent to the Gulf? (ok non binding resolution but it is just semantics). Or are they keeping the troops at home on standby to move into Iran in a moments notice?

[Canadian Blue]

Why would they keep troops at home so they can invade in a moments notice. In order to invade Iran they would need to setup a huge buildup along the borders. Right now America can't even control Iraq, do you think the Congress and Senate would approve of such an action. If Bush invaded Iran without approval from Congress or the Senate, I believe we would be seeing impeachment hearings within a month.

I don't know but they live in deserts. Without our money and food imports they'd be royally screwed. There's lots of places in the world to get oil. Plus biofuel is becoming very promising. You can run a diesel on straight up Canola oil. Canada doesn't need the middle east for anything. Just give them guns and let them kill each other.

Or we could stop giving them guns, and try bring about peace diplomatically.

[blueblood]

Biofuel is a wasteful enterprise. First off you are using oil to plant/harvest/process netting a loss of consumable energy, compared to just using the oil to plant corn to eat. I think solar/wind/electric is the way to go. (remember the GM EV1?)

Yes and when the biofuel gets in the "oil cycle" it will pay for itself. It will eventually take away barrels of oil used. Not in the first prelim. billions of litres of biofuel mean billions of oil not used. But you are right in that way off the gun straight oil is needed.

Iran does not need the greenback since it is trading all it's oil in Euros. If you want to do business in regards to oil with Iran, you deal in Euros. Who benefits from that anyways? Not the US that is for sure. Iraq was looking at switching to the Euro as well. In a way this really prevents the US from doing energy/oil related business in Iran.

You can also shut down the rigs, put up a naval blockade, etc. Mind you, the whole world has to get on board. No money going in.

Since the US has that many troops, tell me why they did not use enough troops to secure Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasions? And why are the Democrats blocking the resolution for more troops to be sent to the Gulf? (ok non binding resolution but it is just semantics). Or are they keeping the troops at home on standby to move into Iran in a moments notice?

I don't know why the US didn't secure a-stan and iraq. It's perplexing, I would have used as much troops as I could in the first place. Maybe they didn't want all their eggs in one basket, or wanted to do it more "efficiently" (which isn't working) Maybe they're saving the troops for something like you suggested.

[blueblood]

Or we could stop giving them guns, and try bring about peace diplomatically.

Or we could let them sort out their own affairs. They don't respond to foreign diplomacy very well. They can go fly a kite.

[blackascoal]

Blueblood,

Mind you, the whole world has to get on board. No money going in.

Therein lies one of the biggest problems with your plan. .. The world ain't buying it.

The momumental failure in Iraq has left the US with little to no global influence. As hard as the Bush Administration has tried to set off alarms about Iran all over the world, the best they could get was limited sanctions on Iran, a far far cry from what they were pushing for. Additionally, China and Russia have flatly stated that they don't think Iran is a threat and attacking Iran would be a big mistake. They do a lot of business with Iran and aren't going to participate in any blockade or isolating Iran into starvation.

The world has already abandoned the US in Iraq, NATO wants out of Afghanistan and NATO nations are willing to commit any more troops there.

Recently, even Chriac stated that a nuclear Iran would be no more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan, North Korea, or anywhere else that is armed with nukes. Mutually assured destruction has been working since the US first opened the nuclear Pandora's Box.

Without a doubt, Iran will acquire nukes .. the Russians and Chinese will make sure of that.

The other problem with your plan is that nearly all the coutries you suggest we islolate, have oil. The West needs them more than they need the West. they are all converting to the euro .. which Saddam had already done .. then we attacked him. Iran has converted .. now we (the US) want to attack them.

Or we could let them sort out their own affairs. They don't respond to foreign diplomacy very well. They can go fly a kite.

They don't need nor want the US to "sort out their own affairs". they can do that for themselves and they know that the US will sort things out to benefit the US FIRST and that we don't give a damn about their people. Look no further than the Oil Law the US is trying to push on the Iraqis.

It is THEM telling the US to go fly a kite ..

[M.Dancer]

The world has already abandoned the US in Iraq, NATO wants out of Afghanistan and NATO nations are willing to commit any more troops there.

More hyperbole from black as coal.......and as usual, false

Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The German government approved the deployment of Tornado fighter jets to Afghanistan to help NATO forces fight the Taliban in the south of the country, deepening Germany's military commitment in the region.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...8&refer=germany

General David Richards of the British Army handed over control of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) to General Dan McNeill of the US in a ceremony today, ending a nine-month tenure which has seen Nato troop numbers rise from just 9,000 last May.

http://www.adfero.co.uk/news/news/defence/...#036;465036.htm

I would suggest Blackascoal take another look at the forum guidelines and rules. His unsourced nonsense is getting tiresome.

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

[Guthrie]

The world has already abandoned the US in Iraq, NATO wants out of Afghanistan and NATO nations are willing to commit any more troops there.

More hyperbole from black as coal.......and as usual, false

who stands by the US in Iraq? the Brits? - I mean the Brits are our biggest ally but it is only the Tony Blair govt who remain loyal --- the population of GB abandoned any support of the Iraq effort a couple years ago

there are no other countries supporting the Bush crusade -- false hyperbole????? no, it is just the rational truth - everyone knows it except for the worst of the right wing servile toads

[sharkman]

Ah yes, but the Great Horned Toads were not born yesterday, and the pond frogs have been secretly meeting to change their strategy.

Servile toads? Man, you really got to try a little harder with the name calling, or give it up altogther. You're embarrassing yourself.

[M.Dancer]

The world has already abandoned the US in Iraq, NATO wants out of Afghanistan and NATO nations are willing to commit any more troops there.

More hyperbole from black as coal.......and as usual, false

who stands by the US in Iraq? the Brits? - I mean the Brits are our biggest ally but it is only the Tony Blair govt who remain loyal --- the population of GB abandoned any support of the Iraq effort a couple years ago

there are no other countries supporting the Bush crusade -- false hyperbole????? no, it is just the rational truth - everyone knows it except for the worst of the right wing servile toads

Nice attempt at confusing the topic....

Lets start form the top, the first guy says NATO wants out of Afghanstan and when that is shown to be fluff, the second gut says who supports "us" in Iraq....

For these two debate is a semi literate shell game.....

[Catchme]

Well now the plot is thickening up a bit, we have 4 aircraft carries, that are in full attack readiness in the Persian Gulf, we have increased false rhetoric against Iran, and now it turns out that a good while ago now this was ordered:

Saudi to Boost Fuel Supply to U.S. Forces in Gulf

05/02/2007

LONDON, (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has steeply raised the amount of its jet fuel earmarked for the United States military, which is expanding its presence in the Gulf, Middle East trading sources said.

They said state oil company Saudi Aramco may have put aside upwards of a million tonnes of the aviation fuel for possible use by the U.S. military this year, compared with around 200,000 tonnes in 2006.

"I believe that Saudi Arabia was warned in advance of the increased U.S. military activity starting early 2007 and may have allocated 1.0 million to 1.2 million tonnes of jet fuel for possible use by the U.S. military during 2007," one source said.

The Pentagon dispatched a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf last month.

The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which oversees the Pentagon's fuel purchases, said an increased presence would entail more fuel demand.

"We are expecting to send another 20,000-25,000 troopers to the Middle East in the near term, so there should be a significant increase in fuel demand," said Patrick Jones, a DESC spokesman in Virginia.

He said the extra supply of jet fuel, as well as other oil products, would come from existing contracts with Middle East suppliers.

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said all naval aircraft used JP-5, a high flash point aviation fuel.

While refineries typically produce standard jet A-1 for civilian aircraft, this can easily be upgraded to JP-5.

"You can't find too much spare jet fuel supplies in the Gulf because a lot of volumes have been farmed up for them (the Pentagon) from Aramco, Adnoc and Bapco," said a Middle East trading expert, also referring to refiners in Abu Dhabi and Bahrain.

a fivefold increase in jet fuel from 2006 to 2007, means a lot of extra flying.somewhere, and a Iraq surge would not account for it

Then we have this:

Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neocon" fanatics such as Vice President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring.

They want Irans oil and everyone says Iran is not doing anything in Iraq

Then we have this little ditty:

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

http://www.upi.com/International_Intellige...8-100038-4021r/

So, they know what their actions will do, we know that they are lying about Iran, just as they did with Iraq, and now we also know they do not care about Iranians or indeed the rest of the world, they want Iran destroyed and as a bonus its oil.

After they nuke Iran it will be too late, way tooo late, any support of USA Israel aggression against Iran, is supporting pre-meditated mass murder. I sincerley hope that anyone who supports this, will be able to live with themselves and with more blood of the innocents upon your hands, just as those do from their support of the Iraq travesty.

[sharkman]

They should just nuke them and turn Sandland into glass. Get it over with. And don't stop there. Nuke the hell out of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq! But get the army out first. I can see Bush messing that one up. Then nuke Russia, China, oh and France. Uhm, North Korea's gotta go, Cuba, and Venezuala too. That about does it. No, wait, Spain's been getting uppity, nuke them too. Then sell everyone the materials and means to rebuild with good old American know-how.

You people really gotta get a grip on reality. No one's going to nuke Iran. But at least in the end you can claim you influenced international policy and won some kind of victory.

[Guthrie]

Ah yes, but the Great Horned Toads were not born yesterday, and the pond frogs have been secretly meeting to change their strategy.

Servile toads? Man, you really got to try a little harder with the name calling, or give it up altogther. You're embarrassing yourself.

They should just nuke them and turn Sandland into glass. Get it over with. And don't stop there. Nuke the hell out of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq! But get the army out first. I can see Bush messing that one up. Then nuke Russia, China, oh and France. Uhm, North Korea's gotta go, Cuba, and Venezuala too. That about does it. No, wait, Spain's been getting uppity, nuke them too. Then sell everyone the materials and means to rebuild with good old American know-how.

You people really gotta get a grip on reality. No one's going to nuke Iran. But at least in the end you can claim you influenced international policy and won some kind of victory.

No, I didn't call anybody that. I only suggested that only such as they were unaware at how isolated the US is in this Iraq debacle. Certainly I believe you are aware of the loss of prestige for the US on the world stage.

[southerncomfort]

You people really gotta get a grip on reality. No one's going to nuke Iran. But at least in the end you can claim you influenced international policy and won some kind of victory.

I sometimes wonder if these guys are smoking the curtains or what. Do you think that it is really deep seated wish to see Iran nuked?

[Catchme]

Servile toads? Man, you really got to try a little harder with the name calling, or give it up altogther. You're embarrassing yourself.

They should just nuke them and turn Sandland into glass. Get it over with. And don't stop there. Nuke the hell out of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq! But get the army out first. I can see Bush messing that one up. Then nuke Russia, China, oh and France. Uhm, North Korea's gotta go, Cuba, and Venezuala too. That about does it. No, wait, Spain's been getting uppity, nuke them too. Then sell everyone the materials and means to rebuild with good old American know-how.

No, I didn't call anybody that. I only suggested that only such as they were unaware at how isolated the US is in this Iraq debacle. Certainly I believe you are aware of the loss of prestige for the US on the world stage.

You are quite correct the USA has lost most if not all of its prestige, and trust on the world stage. They have shown themselves to be dishonest brokers.

For reasons like this:

On the night of September 19, 2006, I was up in New York covering the Clinton Global Initiative as a journalist/blogger and extremely impressed with the vitality and relationships of Bill Clinton's global network.

Earlier that day, President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly and focused heavily on how to get US policy in the Middle East on a better course. In particular, he focused on establishing a State of Palestine

I thought that this was a pretty hopeful speech...But that night...I was hanging out with some of the real insiders in Palestinian-Israel-US affairs. The Palestinians were in the dumps and very depressed and distressed by the gap between President Bush's speech and what they were being told privately by National Security Council Senior Staff member Elliot Abrams and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch.

Despite the "enlightened tone" of the Bush speech, the Palestinians were told that they had to break up the fragile effort to establish a "unity government" with Hamas.

Saudi Arabia, disturbed by the poor hand America is playing in Middle East affairs, brokered the kiss-and-make-up sessions between Abbas and Meshal and the unity government is coming together.

All of this has been in the news. We apparently talk to the Saudis frequently.

And yet -- quite unbelievably -- I have dependable sources inside the US government foreign policy bureaucracy who tell me that our decision makers were caught completely off-guard by the Saudi venture and its success.

Elliot Abrams is again winding up a spin and influence machine to try and send signals that America is not please with this move towards a unity government

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[Black Dog]

You people really gotta get a grip on reality. No one's going to nuke Iran.

Tell that to the people who want Iran nuked from your side of the spectrum.

[scribblet]

You people really gotta get a grip on reality. No one's going to nuke Iran.

Tell that to the people who want Iran nuked from your side of the spectrum.

No one wants Iran 'nuked' more spurious innuendo and sheer speculation. I think some of us would be happy to see a shot at destroying Iran's nuclear plants in a manner similar to that of Clinton's on Iraq's facilities. Certainly no one is wishing to see Iran and their people destroyed, unlike their President's oft spoken sentiments towards Israel.

[Black Dog]

No one wants Iran 'nuked' more spurious innuendo and sheer speculation. I think some of us would be happy to see a shot at destroying Iran's nuclear plants in a manner similar to that of Clinton's on Iraq's facilities. Certainly no one is wishing to see Iran and their people destroyed, unlike their President's oft spoken sentiments towards Israel.

First of all: can you clarify what you mean by "no one" for me? 'Cause I know this one guy...

Second: while I concur that a nuclear strike against Iran is a dim possibility at this juncture, I don't think that just bombing them a little bit is a good course of action. We have no way of knowing if Clinton's efforts were responsible for the termination of Iraq's WMD programs (there was also a little thing called "inspections") and even if that were the case, it does not logically follow that an attack on Iran would have the same effects. There's a dizzying arrary of factors in place that make the comparison to Desert Fox or Israel's strike on the Osirik facility a poor one. Many of those factors (Iran's alliance with the Shi'a's in in Iraq for one) are precisely why even a limited attack on Iran is a bad idea even if it could accomplish thje goal of destroying its nuke program (which is itself a dubious prospect).

[GostHacked]

scriblett

No one wants Iran 'nuked' more spurious innuendo and sheer speculation. I think some of us would be happy to see a shot at destroying Iran's nuclear plants in a manner similar to that of Clinton's on Iraq's facilities. Certainly no one is wishing to see Iran and their people destroyed, unlike their President's oft spoken sentiments towards Israel.

Clinton had nothing really to do with the bombing of the Osarick reactors in Iraq. It was Israel. And that was during Reagan's administration. The words of the President of Iran have been twisted and tweaked for ADD public. People who really know, know that he never said he wanted Israel wipped off the face of the earth. (Even if he did, he is talking about Israel, and not being an anti-semite jew hatting arab. .. but oh you will try to show me he is.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3014623.stm

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

So far it looks like it has been the ONLY attack on a nuclear facility anywhere. Clinton HAD planned an attack on Iraq's almost rebuilt nuclear programme buuut....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

Mr. Bill Clinton himself said that. Luckily I know how to search for things on the Internet, or I might have taken your word at face value. Good try though.

[Catchme]

There is too much evidence suporting the fact the USA/Isreal want to bomb Iran, both here and on the other Iran.

Saying that Iran, if it gets nukes, will use them against Israel, is so far from plausable as to be non-existent.

First and primary reason is, they would never bomb Israel because of Dome of the Rock. It is one of Muslims most sacred places and they would do nothing to harm it, or their access to it.

Second, when has Iran ever been the aggressor?

[Canadian Blue]

Catchme whats the deal with all the love of Iran and the mullah's, and all the hating on Israel. Honestly what kind of things has the Iranian leaders said with reference to the holocaust, GLBT rights, feminism, etc. Yet you still are more supportive of Iran then you are of Israel.

Saying that Iran, if it gets nukes, will use them against Israel, is so far from plausable as to be non-existent.

So let me get this straight a democracy such as Israel will nuke Iran killing as many civilian's as possible, but the peaceful Iranian government would never do that?

[Guthrie]

Catchme whats the deal with all the love of Iran and the mullah's, and all the hating on Israel. Honestly what kind of things has the Iranian leaders said with reference to the holocaust, GLBT rights, feminism, etc. Yet you still are more supportive of Iran then you are of Israel.

Saying that Iran, if it gets nukes, will use them against Israel, is so far from plausable as to be non-existent.

So let me get this straight a democracy such as Israel will nuke Iran killing as many civilian's as possible, but the peaceful Iranian government would never do that?

Israel is not a democracy ---

Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran does not --

Israel has never shown any compunction about killing innocent civilians

[Black Dog]

I can't help but think all the jibber jabber over the dubious allegation that the U.S. wants to nuke Iran is obscuring the real issue which is the very real prospect that they will try to take out their nuclear facilities. Given teh serious consequenses of such an operation to the region and the world, shouldn't we, like, be talkking about that? I for one would love to know how those who, like scribblett, are advocating just a little bombing plan to address those consequenses.

[M.Dancer]

I can't help but think all the jibber jabber over the dubious allegation that the U.S. wants to nuke Iran is obscuring the real issue which is the very real prospect that they will try to take out their nuclear facilities. Given teh serious consequenses of such an operation to the region and the world, shouldn't we, like, be talkking about that? I for one would love to know how those who, like scribblett, are advocating just a little bombing plan to address those consequenses.

A measured response that destroys the facilities as well as the intellectual assets that work them will go along way rtowards ending the nuclear threat of a crackpot nation. The collateral benifits might even be they re think thgeirn support of the insurgencies in iran and iraq......

Now the down side....well, there isn't one. Iran is already supporting terrorism....so they can't change tactics there......on the otherhand, allowing them the time to develop nuclear weapons means if you miss, they might get the next shot.

[Black Dog]

A measured response that destroys the facilities as well as the intellectual assets that work them will go along way rtowards ending the nuclear threat of a crackpot nation.

Or it might not. In fact, it could well accelererate the threat. It seems you have a high level of faith in the USAF.

The collateral benifits might even be they re think thgeirn support of the insurgencies in iran and iraq......

Why would they do that? If anything, they would retaliate through their proxies.

Now the down side....well, there isn't one.

Wuh?

Iran is already supporting terrorism....so they can't change tactics there......

They can increase the level of support and make life a helluva lot more miserable for the U.S.'s interests in the region. Not to mention the potential there for disruption of the oil supplies and the resulting increase in prices.

on the otherhand, allowing them the time to develop nuclear weapons means if you miss, they might get the next shot.

Well, there's simply no way to guarantee your course of action will acheive its hoped for results. No doubt Iran is expecting airstrikes and will no doubt be taking steps (burying facilities, dummy facitlities, built-in redundancies) to mitigate the effects of an attack. And even if they were, by some miracle, able to succeed in destroying Iran's work to date, there's nothing to stop them from restarting the program or seeking further assistance from other nuclear states, such as China or North Korea. So an attack would likely buy the west a few years at the price of stregthening the regime in Tehran and making them even more resistant to diplomacy.

[Riverwind]

Now the down side....well, there isn't one. Iran is already supporting terrorism....so they can't change tactics there......on the otherhand, allowing them the time to develop nuclear weapons means if you miss, they might get the next shot.

Excuse me? Further inflaming the muslim world is not a down side? Iran has a 'legimate' need for nuclear weapons to defend itself against a US attack. They have as much right to possess nukes as China, Russia or the US for that matter. Furthermore, Iran's support of terrorism is no different than what the US did during the cold war in places ranging from Afganistan to Nicaragua.

It is true that the rhetoric coming out of Tehran is distrubing but there is evidence that the person spouting this rhetoric does not speak for either the real leadership in Tehran or the people as a whole.