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

Guthrie · February 3, 2007

If congress and the senate don't want it to happen, it won't happen. In Iraq the president had the support of congress and the senate, he wouldn't have the same support to attack Iran.

The president has the power to respond to provocation and attack, which is the case they are trying to build with "seized Iranian weapons" and "seized Iranian agents". He can respond to a created "provocation" which is what Zbigniew Brzezinski is warning the US Congress of right now. He almost came right out and said that we did 9/11 and are capable of doing it again.

Then the Bush Administration can claim "defense" as their rationale.

However, nobody is buying it this time and Brzezinski's warning may have complicated their plans even further.

What, do you think Bush is an idiot or something?

yes, an idiot

Jerry J. Fortin · February 3, 2007

Well, you're over looking the fact that GW et all think they are a mission from God too. And it would be GW et al who would be using actual, real nukes, as opposed to hypothetical ones 10 years in the future. So, by your rational, it would be GW et al who believe that nuclear winter would be a solution for global warming, as they are the ones actually going to use them.

My prediction, we'll never see an attack on Iran in the next decade, or even the next 50 years.

I will predict an attack on Iran within the next ten to fifty days.........

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

I will predict an attack on Iran within the next ten to fifty days.........

How many years do you think the war will last?

Jerry J. Fortin · February 3, 2007

I will be long dead before this confrontation is over. You see I am of the belief that an attack on Iran is an attack on the strategic energy resources of China. Given that China gets a vast amount of oil from Iran I can see them getting a little miffed at a threat to their energy supply chain. This could lead to the Chinese letting go of the lease on their dog in Korea. Instead of involving themselves in a war, I think the Chinese would rather utilize influence and alliances to preserve their infrastructure while achieving political objectives.

This little brush war in Iraq, is nothing more than the smoldering ember that may ignite a world wide war. The middle east may be in the spot light now, but there is Korea to worry about and China as well. Not to mention the threat of resource retaliation from other places in South America. The American Empire is in danger.

Canadian Blue · February 3, 2007

I'll believe it when I see it, I don't see a massive buildup on the border of Iran, and the White House would need to enstate a draft and increase the defense budget for an attack to happen.

Catchme · February 3, 2007

I'll believe it when I see it, I don't see a massive buildup on the border of Iran, and the White House would need to enstate a draft and increase the defense budget for an attack to happen.

Oh no, no build up, eh? Why then are 4, USA Air Craft Carrier Strike groups on their way to the Persian Gulf?

Canadian Blue · February 4, 2007

Can you give a link to that, as well you need land forces to invade a country. Right now the US can't spare any and are stretched to the limit.

Catchme · February 4, 2007

Sure can

4 strikes groups off to the middle east

jdobbin · February 4, 2007

Former U.S. military leaders on Iran.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/03...reut/index.html

Three former senior U.S. military officials warn that any military action against Iran would have "disastrous consequences" and urged Washington to hold immediate and unconditional talks with Tehran.

Catchme · February 4, 2007

Typical under reporting but noneless shows what they are trying to do yet again.

from jdobbins link above;

The Bush administration has increased the regularity and vehemence of its accusations against Iran, prompting speculation it could be laying the ground for military attack against the Islamic state.
Washington has also sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, a move seen as a warning to Iran, which the United States accuses of seeking atomic arms and fueling instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran denies the charges.

In a letter to London's Sunday Times newspaper, the three former U.S. military leaders said attacking Iran "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions," they wrote.

They say they have sent a second one, neglecting to say 2 were already there. As per my link above.

Canadian Blue · February 4, 2007

Catchme, don't you think America would need you know some land forces to attack Iran. At the moment they can't spare any.

Catchme · February 4, 2007

Apparently Can Blue, the 3 former US military leaders have strong concerns that Bush is going to attack Iran soon, or did you not read the article above? And one would think they knew more than you about what is going on. So, I, in the meantime, will take facts on: the ground info inside USA, the Persain Gulf, excellerated rhetoric against Iran, and the US military deployments, before personal opinion commentary.

GostHacked · February 4, 2007

Catchme, don't you think America would need you know some land forces to attack Iran. At the moment they can't spare any.

With the US Navy in the gulf, the US can be brave with being out of range. Cruise missles (rememeber the first gulf war? and the invasion of Iraq?) They really do not need ground forces to accomplish what they want, which is a blockade on Iran.

Iraq - Iran - Afghanistan

Persion Gulf

Come out with your hands up, we got you surrounded.

OH also you have an Air force as well. Many US Air bases in the gulf. Troops are needed to secure the peace after an invasion. But if you just want to cause turmoil, (or terrorise others,, hmm terrorism) you can just drop bombs, fire off some missles. A land war would be lost with Iran. But let's see how long it takes before 'no fly zones' are put into effect.

I predict an attack on Iran late late this year or JAN/FEB in 2008.

Canadian Blue · February 5, 2007

An attack on Iran would be unsuccessful, for a variety of reason most sane and rational people can see. First of all to do so without approval from both houses could possibly cause impeachment hearings, and even then the US Military would need a massive increase in the defense budget. As well to pull any troops out of Iraq could cause a full blown civil war.

Once it happen's, then come and talk to me.

By the way Catchme I read the article, and it says that an attack on Iran would be a completely misguided effort, and they do not say that an attack on Iran is in the near future. A blockade, perhaps, but an attack no way in hell.

Apparently Can Blue, the 3 former US military leaders have strong concerns that Bush is going to attack Iran soon, or did you not read the article above? And one would think they knew more than you about what is going on. So, I, in the meantime, will take facts on: the ground info inside USA, the Persain Gulf, excellerated rhetoric against Iran, and the US military deployments, before personal opinion commentary.

An attack right now is pure speculation, if an attack is to take place then it will need more than a aircraft carrier.

I think that you have a bit of trouble comprehending the facts, especially considering you're partisan hackery.

blackascoal · February 5, 2007

If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.

The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.

Fortunata · February 5, 2007

...and even then the US Military would need a massive increase in the defense budget.

CNN: Bush submits $2.9 trillion budget to Congress

...Bush was seeking a Pentagon budget of $624.6 billion for 2008, more than one-fifth of the total budget, up from $600.3 billion in 2007....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/bus...t.ap/index.html

Now, I'm not saying that I think Iran is a done deal but I think that with all the rhetoric from the Bush admin. it shows he WANTS to do Iran. Someone hit it on the head when they said it could be arranged as response to an act of aggression. Remember Poland's aggression to Germany in WWII? Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?

I can't see how the USA can afford to get into it with Iran but then I didn't see how a rational country would abandon Afghanistan to get into it with Iraq either.

Catchme · February 5, 2007

If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.
The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.

blackascoal · February 6, 2007

If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.

The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.

It would an absolutely mind-blowing ridiculous thing to do .. which is why I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration wants to do it.

blueblood · February 6, 2007

If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.

The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.

Wasting soldier's lives on trash like that isn't worth it. Just cut them off like the palestinians. That strategy is working too well, they're killing each other.

Black Dog · February 6, 2007

Wasting soldier's lives on trash like that isn't worth it.

Isn't that what they are for?

Just cut them off like the palestinians. That strategy is working too well, they're killing each other.

Cut them off from what? What in hell are you on about?

blueblood · February 7, 2007

If the soldiers are going to be out fighting trying to change the minds of mindless barbarians (pardon my french) who want to live like that, what's the use. Having a standing army ready to go against a world war II style threat is IMO the way to go.

I'd say if Iran is such a problem in everyone's eyes, then cut them off from our money. Naturally China and Russia don't view them as a problem hence why they do business with them. The palestinians are cut off from foreign money and now they are busy fighting each other, i haven't heard of too much violence towards israel at this point. Is this method of attrition cruel? Absolutely. Is it working to some degree? I think so. IMO we shouldn't be doing business with this area if it's going to be this hostile. If they can get their ducks in a row then fine do business with them.

blackascoal · February 7, 2007

If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.

The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.

Wasting soldier's lives on trash like that isn't worth it. Just cut them off like the palestinians. That strategy is working too well, they're killing each other.

The Iranians don't need US dollars, and, NOT leaving them alone is the entire argument .. and there is a vast difference between the Iranians, who have oil, and the Palestinians, who have nothing.

blackascoal · February 7, 2007

If the soldiers are going to be out fighting trying to change the minds of mindless barbarians (pardon my french) who want to live like that, what's the use. Having a standing army ready to go against a world war II style threat is IMO the way to go.
I'd say if Iran is such a problem in everyone's eyes, then cut them off from our money. Naturally China and Russia don't view them as a problem hence why they do business with them. The palestinians are cut off from foreign money and now they are busy fighting each other, i haven't heard of too much violence towards israel at this point. Is this method of attrition cruel? Absolutely. Is it working to some degree? I think so. IMO we shouldn't be doing business with this area if it's going to be this hostile. If they can get their ducks in a row then fine do business with them.

Again, BIG difference between Iran and Palestine.

They don't need our money .. in fact, the Iranians have converted to the euro .. but WE need their oil.

Additionally, try convincing ANYONE that we should leave the middle east, where the oil is, alone.

The Chinese and Russians would absolutely love your idea.

blueblood · February 7, 2007

Again, BIG difference between Iran and Palestine.
They don't need our money .. in fact, the Iranians have converted to the euro .. but WE need their oil.

Additionally, try convincing ANYONE that we should leave the middle east, where the oil is, alone.

The Chinese and Russians would absolutely love your idea.

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.

If China and Russia didn't buy oil from Iran they'd be a third world country too. Any county can be screwed if no money and no imports/exports go to/come from it.

blueblood · February 7, 2007

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.