| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 11:22:57 PM | The biggest consequences are:
1. Bush declaring a National Emergency after he attacks Iran in October.
2. Bush suspends the 2008 elections.
3. Bush continues to remain in office while the US is at war.
4. Bush puts Americans who protest into FEMA detention centers under authority of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006
National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack.
| |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:50:11 AM | One of the main consequences of attacking Iran would be the demise of America. There would be no support for the US in any such attack from any other nation on earth, nor by many Americans either. It would be seen for what it is, an attack on a non threatening nation by a terrorist country.
The next war from the middle east would almost certainly be fought on the streets of America and the UK with events like 9/11 and 7/7 becoming an everyday occurance and would without most likely lead to the end of the American dream and to our brand of democracy.
Such a war can only be started with the full agreement of the British and American people and given what we now know about our ability to defend ourselves against such retribution we are not likely to allow it to happen. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:32:47 AM | lets see......"an innocent country like iran"?
if thats an innocent country i would hate to see the guilty ones.
that kipling poem was written by a bleeding heart who does not understand the way the world works, certainly not anything about america.........! we are about business. like president wilson said, the business of america is business........no more no less. we do business with democracies and dictatoships alike, we dont discriminate. the liberals seize on that to call us "bullies".........so would you rather have the communists, or the muslims be the bullies?
who cares what the "world" thinks?
where is the "world" when the jews were being slaughtered in the holocaust? the armenians being slaughtered, the killing in rwanda that went on at the rate of 10,000 a day for 100 days? mao killing 50 million chinese? stalin starving and freezing to death 20 million kulaks? please. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 3:54:13 PM | US won't do it. But Israel will. What'll happen? Same thing that happened when Israel bombed Iraq's Nuke Facility. Nothing. And the world will be a safe place for it.
As for Iran never having invaded another country in 3 hundred years, BS. Hezbollah is to an Iranian army, as the French Foreign Legion is to the French. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 4:35:53 PM | Iran doesnt need to invade another country. They have oil, guns and money. Set up pretty sweet.
Israel is going to take out those reactors. No doubt about it. Its not an invasion, but its sure better than letting Arab extremist Koran toting nutbars fire nukes into anyone they dont like..which happens to be..anyone who isnt Muslim!
Invasion no. Air strike to destroy reactors, yes.
And Nero,, you make a cogent point that you found Israelis to be obnoxious. They are. But my point that invasion is going to just kill innocent Persians notwithstanding, I think you paint a much too rosy picture of Arab and Persian hospitality. I wouldnt go as far as calling all Israelis rude and obnoxious. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:21:22 PM | "if thats an innocent country i would hate to see the guilty ones."
No problem; just step outside your door and take a look around.
If Bush really is stupid enough to launch an attack on Iran, then it will, as has been pointed out, leave absolutely NO doubt that the U.S. is, indeed, a terrorist nation bent on destroying Islam.
All bets will be off.
Say goodbye to la dolce vita.
Get ready to be just like "those poor people!" you see on news reports from overseas war zones. | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:03:07 PM | ISRAEL will soon attack Iran. They will level the nuclear installations just as they did in Syria last year and in Iraq in 1981. Reports have been surfacing in the news all week about a LARGE SCALE drill that Israel performed to practice this bombing. The commander was the same Air Force Commander that masterminded the leveling of Iraq's facility in 1981.
The discussions about an invasion and US attack are naive and ill informed.
I predict that Israel will execute the attack before the election. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:17:23 PM | | ^^^ That sounds like the most reasonable outcome to me as well. The time table seems reasonable too because it will be easier on the incoming President to have this happen while Bush is still in office. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:45:16 PM | When Israel leveled the Syrian nuclear facility last year Syria did nothing and said nothing for a month. After they cleared the evidence they allowed they the press in. Six month later they allowed the IAEA in.
What they did not understand is that any civilian could go to Google Earth and see the before and after shot of the coordinates - perfect proof of their plans to develop Nuclear Weapons.
Thus the silence world wide.
You can expect the same scenario with Iran. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 1:51:57 AM | t is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace.
Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.
The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.
Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives.
The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable. Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy.
Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons:
The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms.
Iran is also developing enormous propellant ballistic missiles and began a space program almost a decade ago that will enable it to bomb the United States. It is also assumed in intelligence circles that Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian scientists.
Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair -- to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region.
Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth.
A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years.
The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938. They were clearly wrong then. They would be just as wrong now. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:19:03 AM | The great thing about you copying and pasting that article from that piece of trash magazine the Toronto sun, is that counter arguments are easy to find, I don't even have to think of them on my own. (you didn't think of yours after all)
The Toronto Sun article proposes the use of tactical nuclear weapons or so-called mini-nukes with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb .
"Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand." (Toronto sun, 2 September 2006)
The article goes beyond the usual pattern of media disinformation, which presents Iran is a threat to global security, calling for punitive bombings pursuant to a Security Council Resolution.
While the proposal to nuke Iran may appear outrageous, it nonetheless reflects US foreign policy. It is consistent with US military doctrine and ongoing war plans which contemplate the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
The nuking of Iran is viewed as a "humanitarian operation" intent upon liberating Iran from oppression.
The objective is to build a consensus that mini nukes are actually safe for civilians and you can use them against rogue states.
"The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.
Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives." (ibid)
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons "are safe for the surrounding civilian population." The use of nuclear weapons against Iran is part of a broad "humanitarian mandate" which seeks to prevent Iran from threatening the World with its own nukes, which it does not possess.
In a recent article, Seymour Hersh (New Yorker) has suggested that the plan to nuke Iran has recently been dropped and that instead, the administration is contemplating the use conventional bunker bombs against Iran's nuclear facilities. Hersh points to divisions between Vice President****Cheney and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace.
According to Hersh's assessment the use of tactical nuclear weapons directed against the Natanz facilities is considered as "politically unacceptable" because it would "vent fatal radiation for miles." The Air Force now contemplates dropping large "bunker-buster" bombs on Natanz to "generate sufficient concussive force to accomplish what a tactical nuclear warhead would achieve, but without provoking an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki,"
It should be understood that even in the case of limited aerial attacks with conventional warheads, the result would be a Chernobyl type nuclear nightmare. The destruction of Iran's civilian nuclear facilities would lead to the spread of nuclear radiation over a vast area.
Anyway, the idea of dropping nukes on targets "for peace" is simply moraly repugnant, as is the attempt to equate not starting another with in the middle east with appeasement. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:48:52 AM | Another zionist armchair killer fomenting war and the slaughter of innocents.
Of course Iran is arming itself. The US and the zionists have been threatening annihilation of Iran for some time now. The neocons have surrounded Iran; no less than three nuclear armed fleets off Irans coast, troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, land bases in pakistan , Turkmenistan. The zionist regime, who have the most to gain from destroying a peaceful country, with its huge armed forces and nuclear weapons poised for slaughter. Because they have the ability to fight back does not make them an "existensial" threat.
The use of the standard neocon misquote of"wiping israel from the face of the earth" makes you a liar and reveals your motivation.
Iran, far from being a "brutal police state", is a democracy with legistlated protection of religious minoritys. It is the US and the zionists who are the international terrorists involved in bloody wars and committing crimes against humanity. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:13:16 AM |
Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
That's just crazy talk. There is absolutely NO WAY that the USA would use nukes of any type in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world for that matter. I hope none of you get your news from that paper. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:46:57 AM | Because they have the ability to fight back does not make them an "existensial" threat. lol. You're a funny guy.
If you have the power to annihilate another country, you have to keep your mouth shut and quit threatening other countries or someone will take you seriously. Hell... they HAVE to take you seriously. How many time can you be wrong thinking "Oh... they're just sayin' sh1t to look tough."? Once. And another thing, they already are attacking Israel with a ghost army (hezbollah).
Iran lit the fuse, now they have to put it out, or Israel will. I don't know why Israel doesn't bomb them for supplying their terrorist with weapons that are killing Israelis. If that's not a declaration of war, I don't know what is. I mean the US sent an army to Afghanistan for the same reason.
When 9/11 happened, I told people at work that the US should nuke Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, or they'd pay for 50 years. I still believe that for Iran. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:42:42 AM | Guess the whole attacking Iran question is moot then.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSDAH32979820080623?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Iran says Israel not capable of threatening it
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Monday Israel could not threaten it, a few days after a U.S. newspaper reported that Israel's air force had apparently rehearsed a potential bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran and Israel have engaged in a sharp exchange of words this month over suspicions Tehran is looking to develop nuclear weapons, helping to push global oil prices higher.
"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:11:28 AM | ^^ What do you expect them to say? Step right in and do as you wish? Or, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesmen tells a news conference, "Isreal will destroy our reactors and has every right to. We expect it soon and welcome it." 
In all seriousness though, as some other posters above said, in all reality what will likely happen is Israel will probably hit the reactor(s) or facilities in question , yes. Similar to the way they hit the Osirak reactor back in the early 80's. And THEN the question will be moot. Likely it will all prove much ado about nothing, except for Iran which will have its nuclear ambitions derailed for about ten or twenty more years. And America and other Western nations won't have to get involved directly at all. After all, this is how it really should be.
As I've said here & elsewhere before, if Israel genuinely feels it faces an existential threat from Iranian reactors then let them deal with it if they can. If they do so successfully, while killing no (or as few as possible) Iranian civilians, more power to them I guess. If they have to deal with any consequences or reprisals afterward (which they're of course aware of) from Hezbollah to their north or from whomever else, then that too is for them to deal with on their own.
The main thing that was bothering me was the idea of seeing America get directly militarily involved in an invasion and occupation type of situation (something America really can't handle or afford right now) solely to pre-emptively defend Israel. Granted, if Israel were attacked (unprovoked) by Iran, then it would be reasonable to expect America and possibly Britain and others as well to step in directly in some way, but pre-emptively .......no way. That's their own job, if they feel it must be done. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 10:02:35 AM | | Its all a moot point anyways, because the United States military doesn't have the necessary man power. At least not the manpower to sustain an occupation. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 10:12:22 AM |
Its all a moot point anyways, because the United States military doesn't have the necessary man power. At least not the manpower to sustain an occupation.
If the United States develops the will...we do. Unlike Iran and most other countries...America can never be under-estimated when it's will to overcome, comes into play. | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:05:21 AM | sam, you are seriously misinformed. hezbollah is a homegrown resistance group that drove the occupiers from South Lebanon. Iran and Syria supplyed and trained them in their efforts, which was the right thing to do. The US on the other hand supplies the zionists whos goal is domination of the middle east through force, which is the wrong thing to do.
The US did not invade Afghanistan because of the second 911, they had plans to invade well before that event. Read the neocons Plan For A New American Century, read also: A Clean Break: A New Stragety For Securing The Realm. The US invaded Afghanistan to change the government to one more compliant and amenable to a pipeline rightofway to the Arabian Sea. The second 911 provided the pretext.
Iran does not have the power to annihilate another country and it has never threatened another country. It stands in the way of eretz israel, israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and by trading oil for currencys other than the greenback it undermines US hegemony in the region. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:14:33 AM | To get to Iran, the IDF will most likely have to fly over Iraqui airspace.. which is currently defended by the USAF......
So will the USAF splash the IDF for invading *their* airspace? Will the US hold the AF back from attacking the IDF aircraft? If they do then that will send a clear msg to everyone on this planet that the IDF *owns* the USAF...
Will the IDF put USAF marking on their aircraft? They've done it before to stir up shit in the Middle East.. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:32:40 PM |
If the United States develops the will...we do. Unlike Iran and most other countries...America can never be under-estimated when it's will to overcome, comes into play.
If by 'will' you mean a draft, then... yes... yes we do.
Our military is huge but the ratio between support and combat is like 10-1. We have something around 200k in Iraq, but the reality is the entire military is engaged in supporting those soldiers, effectively tying up our entire 1.5 million active + 1.5 million reserve forces. We could 'easily' invade Iran, but sustaining an Iraq-like occupation would almost certainly be impossible with our current soldier level. (Thats assuming the insurgency in Iran has the same intensity as the Iraqi insurgency. Considering Iran is much bigger and more populous, I think thats a safe assumption.)
So, given current realities and the massive need for logistical support for such a war, I say no... we don't have the capacity. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:48:07 PM | ^^ I think it would in fact redefine "insurgency". You are correct, I believe that barring a draft there is no realistic way the US could hold down occupations in Iraq, Iran , and Afghanistan.... not without bankrupting the nation at least, and getting untold numbers of US and other troops all killed and maimed.
Unseating these Middle Eastern (in this case Asian) regimes from power is one thing. Occupying, uniting, nation-building within already hostile Muslim-majority countries almost invariably becomes a terminal sandtrap and money pit for Western (or Eastern -- the Soviets tried too) superpowers... | |
|
Home
login 
