|
|
|
|
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/29/2008 3:39:12 AM | It is also worth remembering that any war with Iran will not only be fought on the streets of the Middle East, it will be fought on the streets of America and whoever else supports them. The number of new 'terrorists' such an attack would create will mean that suicide bombers and 9/11 type attacks will become an everyday occurance on our streets.
Whilst many controls have been introduced in both the UK and America to prevent further acts of terror, the fact that the attacks here in the UK were carried out by British subjects born and bred, working in respectable jobs with families, should tell you that you will never have any defence against these attacks.
We are already losing the war in the Middle East and are doing absolutley nothing of any significance in the war on terror, attacking Iran will bring the front line of these wars right home to us in our cities and towns. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/30/2008 9:36:24 AM | The retoric needs to be played down ~ I think ~
A stateman from Iran visited us here in the US recently ~ forget his name ~ I'm sure many of you remember his name. ~
Did he offer us anything ~ that be deemed unacceptable? ~ I don't remember it so ~ if he did.
and I don't fully appericate the point ~ Of Iran attacking anyone ~
I think thats a matter of going back in history far enough. ~
and really don't tell us much ~ We Americans ~ are "Attack'ur Us" of the 20 century
Israel has done they share as well ~ it's been decided necessary,
A country will look after it's interest ~ What was our interest in Afrganistan? ~ IraQ?
Why then Iran? My thoughts on this ~ to destablize the country and attempt to make gains in control of crude oil ~ which may be fine ~ but we can't accomplish this with reserves with fancy war toys alone, serving 6 month tours. ~ We must bring more to the table.
You need good reasons to rally the America people ~ like a twin towers ~or some thing else mean and nasty that brings public out cry and anger.
and this is the delicate spot Iran is in ~ No Korea is spared this fate ~ being short mineral wealth.
Dance | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:14:43 AM | | Its time! The US will soon support the the attacking of Iran. Consequences- lots of dead people. However--not to worry life will not change in our little worlds. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/30/2008 4:23:34 PM | Oh lord ... don't you people feel any obligation to check the FACTS ... before you recommend incinerating perhaps thousands of innocent people. This is NOT true ... Amadinejad's comments about Israel applied to its governance, not its people.
Do you really beleive that? The holocaust comic book drawing competition? Thats like saying you dont mind women, but hold a rape comic conference and competition.
hahahahha..rape..look..shes screaming..thats so funny!!!!
hahahah...look at the funny holocaust cartoons, dead Jewish children clinging to their dying mothers for life in an oven....i like that cartoon best!
Just listen to yourselves. You are falling on your moral swords to defend Iran, a country so primitive in its governance, so disdainful of the UN, so arrogant that it frightens its neighbors....
Find another cause. I, for one, despite my reservations, wont lose any sleep over seeing their entire nuclear bomb scheme blown to bits. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:16:34 PM | I guess we will know what the consequences are pretty soon .
Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heartUzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.
The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.
The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.
Major-General Mohammad Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, told a Tehran daily: “This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic’s missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime – despite all its abilities – cannot confront it.”
Related Links
Sarkozy pledges to block nuclear Iran
North Korea removed from US 'axis of evil'
An editorial in a government newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, said: “Our response will hit right at their temple.”
The sabre-rattling coincided with a visit to Israel yesterday by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, for talks with his Israeli opposite number, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi. This intensified speculation that Israel was seeking US approval for a possible attack on Iran.
“Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we’ll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US,” said an Israeli defence source. He refused to elaborate.
President George Bush has approved the linking of Israel to a US infrared satellite detection system that could spot Shahab missile launches within seconds.
This should enable the Israeli air force to destroy such missiles in the booster stage. The system will also give the Israelis about 15 minutes to seek shelter before any warhead hits. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/1/2008 9:36:47 AM | Who was who said: " One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is statistics."?
According to Global Research, at an international conference at Berlin June 24 and 25, widely ignored by the international press, two Iranian spokesmen stated explicitly that Tehran would be willing to freeze uranium enrichment and provide concrete mechanisms to ensure that its' enrichment program would not, and could not be geared to weapons production.
The zionist response was to encrease war rethoric and the price of oil. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:48:39 PM | http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9749584?source=rss
Iran evidence ignored, ex-Cia agent claims
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 11 AM MDT
WASHINGTON — A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.
The one-time undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all," said his attorney, Roy Krieger.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano flatly rejected the allegation that the agency had suppressed reports. | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/1/2008 4:39:19 PM |
It is also worth remembering that any war with Iran will not only be fought on the streets of the Middle East, it will be fought on the streets of America and whoever else supports them. The number of new 'terrorists' such an attack would create will mean that suicide bombers and 9/11 type attacks will become an everyday occurance on our streets. Whilst many controls have been introduced in both the UK and America to prevent further acts of terror, the fact that the attacks here in the UK were carried out by British subjects born and bred, working in respectable jobs with families, should tell you that you will never have any defence against these attacks. We are already losing the war in the Middle East and are doing absolutley nothing of any significance in the war on terror, attacking Iran will bring the front line of these wars right home to us in our cities and towns.
Do you have any evidence to support such drivel?
Have there been any other Muslim Terrorist attacks in the USA since 9-11?
What did Syria do last August when Israel leveled their Nuke Site?
Do you think that Syria is not connected to Muslim terrorist groups?
This is too freakin funny to waste time on!
| |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:01:07 PM | jed456 wrote:
That low?I would expect $15_20 bucks a gallon if you can get it.An attack on Iran would prompt most likely the shutting down of the strait of hormuz.And I agree the moderate faction's of the Iranian people will immediately be driven into backing the more brutal regime.I shake my head at some people's point of view who's first reaction is Attack,Bomb,incinerate.
If the Strait of Hormuz becomes blocked, then yes I would tend to agree that $15 - $2o bucks a gallon ... *if you can get it* ... would not be unrealistic; as shutting down that shipping lane would trigger *actual supply shortages* on top of the already predatory art of the profiteers and speculators.
The Iranian reformers have said as much ... and bringing them up as a justification for waging attacks on Iran ... is not only cynical and disingenuous but provocatively dangerous (to them) as well.
nomadic wrote:
Whatever outrage it would cause among Islamic nations aside, one only has to look at a map to understand why this would be considered an intolerable threat to both China and Russia. If American soliders (or American-backed Israeli soldiers) occupied Iran, that would create an enormous block extending from near to the border of western China, all under American control. Added to that, it would give the occupiers of Iran control over a sizeable amount of the oil-rich Caspain Sea--a reserve whose control has already caused tension between Iran, China, Russia and some of the former Soviet countries controlling the northern coast. China wants to pipe oil from there to lessen its dependence on the Persian Gulf, and has entered into agreements with Iran for exploration, and Iran wants more of the oil there than various -Stans and Russia want it to have. An occupation of Iran would OBVIOUSLY threaten all interests there, even apart from the basic geo-political problem of so much Asian territory next door to these two giants (China and Russia) being controlled by the U.S. I personally have often thought that our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were at least in part motivated by a desire to create this swathe of control AND take control of the Caspian Sea--Iran sits conveniently right between those two other countries as well as bordering the Persian Gulf--so....
I think that what you have said is absolutely true, and I think that this is exactly what Bush and Cheney (and their ilk) once had in mind ... the framework of direct control and domination has been completely abandoned, due the dismal results of their radical adventures in Iraq; yet what remains is the insane lust, of both the US and Israel, to punish Iran, ostensibly for their 'nuclear weapons ambitions' ... but that can not truly be the case, nor the reason.
First off, Iran says they are pursuing the enrichment cycle only (as they are allowed to under the NPT) and solely for civilian power generation. Iran has granted the IAEA extraordinary access to Iranian nuclear sites and they (IAEA) have said that as far as they can tell, Iran is not diverting its stockpiles to military use. The fall 2007 NIE on Iran, that was written as the comprehensive assessment of 16 US intelligence agencies, concurs and determines that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons ... but even if all the above would prove untrue it still prevents Iran any equivalent capacity in regard to threat and capability.
In other words, even if Iran had the bomb, it might only act as a defensive check to US and Israel's nuclear hegemony, in that if Iran ever determined to use such a weapon it would be immediately decimated and swiftly turned into a land of irradiated glass. Contrary to the commonly promoted propaganda line, Iranian beliefs in dispensationalism does not equate into an irrational 'deathwish', Shia Islam need be differentiated from such perversive currents in Wahabi fanaticism.
Knowing this as the US and Israel most certainly do, what is left is the thought of Iran having a defensive check on their hegemonic dominance, and that ladies and gentlemen, is what both Israel and the US truly fear, in reality.
Limiting Iran's military capability to conventional forces may be a rational goal from that strategic perspective, but the desire 'to bully and punish' Iran is not, as that can only lead, ultimately, to an increased Iranian desire to acquire a nuclear option to check such challenges to their autonomy ... the very thing you are supposedly attempting to discourage.
In the analysis of US actions this seems an incredibly cynical kabuki dance wherein the increasingly hostile posture of Israel and the US to foment internal conflict in effort to destabilize the Iranian regime, becomes the exact rationale that compels Iran by necessity, to develop the nuclear option we are sworn to prevent; something that all 3 parties must surely now understand.
Attacking Iran's legitimate acquisition to nuclear technology for civilian power generation would guaranty to force Iran to alter their current position of civilian enrichment, to desperately pursue a nuclear weapon capability in the future.
If I were Russia or China, this is not something I'd want to see, even apart from the effect on both powers of their access (real and potential) to Caspian oil being seriously threatened.
Leaving aside the Caspian oil reserves or thoughts of an occupation, Russia has already stated that any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on Russia.
caw | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:41:51 PM |
Just listen to yourselves. You are falling on your moral swords to defend Iran, a country so primitive in its governance, so disdainful of the UN, so arrogant that it frightens its neighbors....
I would say Israel's current governance is 'primitive' organized much as South Africa's was, an Apartheid State ... designed to be of maximum benefit to its preferred mono-cultural ethnic population (Jews), much as the Third Reich organized itself to be of sole benefit to the ideal Aryan population ... as opposed to modern governance wherein *all citizens* have equal protections, and equal civilian and political rights under the law, regardless of their ethnic or religious identity.
Disdainful of the UN, and so arrogant that it frightens its neighbors ... does that describe Iran or Israel best?
Hahahahaha ... I guess some people can simultaneously exemplify both chutzpah and irony without pause or a second thought ... particularly those with nicks feigning peacefulness while being lustful about dropping bombs on Iranians.
How would it strike other folks if posters started recommending that Iran immediately attack the Jewish state post haste, as it is obvious that the Jews are up to no good ... and that their hostile intentions are widely known?
caw | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:36:53 AM | http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLYO82850220080708
Iran to "hit Tel Aviv, U.S. ships" if attacked
Tue Jul 8, 2008 8:04am EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (25) [-] Text [+]
5:58am EDT
By Parisa Hafezi
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in the Gulf and American interests around the world if it is attacked over its disputed nuclear activities, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
"The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe," the students news agency ISNA quoted Ali Shirazi as saying in a speech to Revolutionary Guards.
The United States and its allies suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs. Tehran says its program is peaceful.
"The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned," Shirazi was quoted as saying.
Shirazi, a mid-level cleric, is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the Revolutionary Guards.
"The Iranian nation will never accept bullying. The Iranian nation is a nation of believers which believes in jihad and martyrdom. No army in the world can confront it," he added.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, declined to comment on the threat to hit Tel Aviv, saying only: "Shirazi's words speak for themselves."
Israel, believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. The United States says it wants to resolve the dispute by diplomacy but has not ruled out military action. Continued... | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 1:00:15 AM | iam7545,
Fistly let me say your coupling of the words Muslim and terrorist are offensive to many including myself. Muslims are no more terrorists than were the Irish people in Northern Ireland who, sponsored by you Americans, brought death to our streets. The ignorance shown by people who are unable or unwilling to accept that being a Muslim is not akin to being a terrorist is blinding.
Since this question asked for speculation on what people 'believed' the consequexces of an attack on Iran might be it is difficult to offer proof what I say might be correct. However, The bombers from July 7th were british subjects born and bred, one of whom worked as a school teacher and none had previously been brought to the attention of the security services. That is a fact. The failed bombers from Glasgow airport were again British born and bred and worked as doctors in our NHS.
The captured suicide bomber from here in the South West was a white Muslim convert with mental health issues. Again unknown to the security services. There are many many more potential attackers here and in the USA and unless we address the reasons that they attack us, the attacks will continue.
It may be the case that the 'terrorists' have not again attacked on the US mainland because it is not necessary. Never have I come accross a people so terrified by what has happened that you are all now actively terrorising yourselfs. The fear shown in these pages is palpable. America fears everyone including your fellow Americans and especially your government. It would be true to say that the terrorists have won.
The Qur'an (2:190) Fight in the name of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.
This passage can be taken to mean that they fight, not to maximise deaths and civilian losses, but with restraint. It is not too difficult should you turn your mind to such matters to see how much worse the attacks on us might be. It is much easier to attack soft targets like a crowd at a Glastonbury music festival or a sports event which remain totally unprotected. Most terrorism is not meant to kill you, it's meant to terrorise you and your fully terrorised. No need for excessive attacks. I believe that when the next president is elected there will be a great momentum towards peace and that sentiment is echoed in the words of many of my Muslim friends and acquaintences whith whom I speak daily.
The Qur'an (8:61) If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the all Hearer, the all knower.
If you think that there are no poetntial terrorist sympathisers already living within your communities or that your CIA or other protection agencies can prevent any further attacks, then you are wrong. More wrong than you can ever imagine.
Syria has probably the greatest role to play in bringing peace to the Middle East and are actively doing so with their peace talks with Israel with the Golan heights. It always suprises me to hear people with little or no understanding of international issues like this talk in such an ill-informed and simplistic manner. If America attacks Iran you will be rightly recognised as a terrorist nation by every other nation on earth and carnage on your streets will begin. The fact that you are all armed and ready will only make the carnage worse.
As for the war on terror, or rather the battle to win hearts and minds, you have done nothing about this. That too is a fact. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 6:39:31 AM | http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080708/ts_csm/airanattack
A U.S. attack on Iran? Not coming soon
By Peter Grier
Tue Jul 8, 4:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON - A preemptive US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities may be unlikely anytime soon. But that does not mean it is off the table forever. And Israel – worried about the possibility of a hostile, nuclear-armed regional neighbor – may have its own timetable for possible military action.
That is the bottom-line conclusion of a number of US-based experts who have talked in recent days about the possibility of any preemptive strike on Iran intended to halt its uranium enrichment program.
US-Iranian relations may well be one of the two or three toughest foreign-policy problems the next American president will have to handle. That leader will have to decide, for example, whether the issue is important enough that the US should make further concessions to Russia to ensure greater cooperation in the struggle to control possible Iranian nuclear proliferation.
And the next president will have to decide on an overall tone with which to approach an Iranian government that of late has sounded more temperate.
"Right now, the Iranians feel they have the upper hand. They're just getting smarter about their rhetoric," says George Perkovich, a nuclear-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Since the end of June, Iran has been talking in a less bellicose manner about its nuclear program.
Talks are "in a new environment, with a new ... perspective," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in a July 6 interview broadcast on CNN.
Meanwhile, the European Union official who is acting as lead negotiator on the nuclear issue with the Iranians reacted guardedly on July 7 to a new letter from Tehran.
The Iranian letter, which EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana said he received late on July 4, was a response to an international offer of incentives meant to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program.
The contents of Iran's letter have not been made public. Mr. Solana called it difficult and complicated, and he said it did not make him "completely optimistic."
Solana said it was "not impossible" that he would soon meet with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, but would not confirm any dates.
"I hope that we can continue the dialogue [with Iran] in the coming weeks, before the end of the month if possible, but I don't want to give you completely optimistic impressions," the EU foreign-policy chief said.
This change of tone came after weeks in which the US and Iran traded threats and warnings over possible American or Israeli military action.
In particular, an Israeli military exercise last month was widely seen as a warning to Tehran.
But that exercise may also have been intended to send a message to the US, noted Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, at a June 26 seminar on US policy toward Iran.
"They are trying to signal that they are really concerned about what is going on here. And [the US and other nations] don't want to let this go too far down the road," he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies seminar on June 26.
The likelihood of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities is not zero, but it is not as high as many experts seem to think, Mr. Pollack said at the CSIS seminar.
That is because Israel knows that it may face retaliation from Iranian allies in Lebanon and Gaza.
"The Israelis are very nervous that if they do it, what happens is actually that Hezbollah and Hamas are told [by Iran], 'We gave you guys 15,000 rockets for a reason. Use them,' " Pollack said.
Meanwhile, talk of force, either overtly or through hints and nods, may be counterproductive, according to Jon Alterman, director of the CSIS Middle East program.
"The more we talk about force, I think the less likely you are to get Gulf ally cooperation.... They are terrified," Mr. Alterman said at the CSIS event.
Elizabeth Cheney, former principal deputy assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, took issue with this position, saying that it is essential that the Iranians believe the US will use force if necessary.
Statements from those in power saying that force is off the table are counterproductive, Ms. Cheney said.
"Whenever you've got statements like that, in my view it actually makes the potential of having to use force greater because people will think, 'Well, the Americans aren't serious about using force,' " she said.
The key way for US officials to look at the issue may be to decide their bottom line as to whether they could live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
If they decide they can't live with an Iran that has a nuclear arsenal, what they are really saying is that they are willing to invade Iran to prevent that from occurring, Pollack said.
"And I don't think that the American public is ready to invade Iran to prevent it from having a nuclear weapon," he said at the CSIS seminar. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 9:06:28 AM | A preemptive US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities may be unlikely anytime soon. But that does not mean it is off the table forever. And Israel – worried about the possibility of a hostile, nuclear-armed regional neighbor – may have its own timetable for possible military action.
What I find so outrageous in this idea of an Israeli timetable is that any attack on Iran now, would be based more on calculations of US Israeli political concern's than on preempting any *actual threat* ... but in the NewSpeak of US and Israeli policy wonks it is now legitimate to attack Iran to prevent even the 'knowledge' of enrichment. Absent in all this bluster is any acknowledgement that not only would such an attack be unlawful, but that such threats of force are unlawful in themselves.
... an Israeli military exercise last month was widely seen as a warning to Tehran.
But that exercise may also have been intended to send a message to the US, noted Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, at a June 26 seminar on US policy toward Iran.
"They are trying to signal that they are really concerned about what is going on here. And [the US and other nations] don't want to let this go too far down the road," he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies seminar on June 26.
In other words, this is both a threat to Iran and a form of extortion to the US and the international community, that if they don't confront Iran, Israel is likely to do something reckless and crazy.
The likelihood of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities is not zero, but it is not as high as many experts seem to think, Mr. Pollack said at the CSIS seminar.
That is because Israel knows that it may face retaliation from Iranian allies in Lebanon and Gaza.
"The Israelis are very nervous that if they do it, what happens is actually that Hezbollah and Hamas are told [by Iran], 'We gave you guys 15,000 rockets for a reason. Use them,' " Pollack said.
On the later point, yes Israel will face harsh reprisals attacks from both Hezbollah and Hamas acting in solidarity to any aggressive attack on Iran, that is almost a certainty, but that would truly be the least of their worries, the worst case being Russian solidarity with Iran, and the worlwide antipathy this would be bound to engender toward the Jewish people.
On the former point, I hope and I pray that Mr Pollack is correct ... that the liklihood of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities is not as high as many seem to think.
caw | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 3:56:09 PM | Attacking Iran obviously cripples oil production by cutting off shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Beyond that you'd likely see a much broader and instantaneous conflict. An attack like that would rally the Muslim world against the west. If Pakistan combines their nuclear weapons with Iran's missile technology Israel is a historical footnote.
We can't win a war in Iran. Goodness, we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is bigger, more powerful, and more populous than both of those put together.
You'd see Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia all turn against us, along with a lot of other states.
Now... the sensible approach is continuing to pursue missile defense systems that will render the Iranian weapons useless. Infinity preferable to war I think. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 4:17:08 PM | | We can win the 'war' in Iran easily, just as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. What we can't do is hold down such a vast territory. The United States is and always has been a terrible occupying force. This is probably what leads us into so many quagmires: our military can achieve victory over the conventional army easily but we don't consider the aftermath. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:51:49 PM | ^^ I agree. The US could likely rather easily topple the Islamic Revolutionary regime in Tehran, in the event of a hypothetical ground invasion (highly unlikely anyway -- barring a direct Iranian attack on the US, IMO). It is what comes after the gov't there is toppled ..... that's when the US inevitably gets sucked in and bled dry. The diagnosis could be terminal in a case like Iran.
It would be to the US what the Afghanistan invasion was to the Soviets, IMO. Troops returning home, demoralized and angry, 12 or 15 yrs later, having lost probably easily over 10 or 12,000 of their comrades-at-arms in an ongoing occupational type of conflict like that, and coming back to find a country where the economy itself is on the brink of collapse. Total nightmare scenario.
I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say it's not just the American "left" that doesn't have the stomach for this (especially now) but probably easily a majority of the American public in general. I can't imagine, if put to a hypothetical referendum-type vote now or in Nov, a majority of Americans voting yes to invade and attempt to occupy Iran.
I can't see for the life of me how people like Elizabeth Cheney (D!ck's daughter) and others who think like her (from aggressive AIPAC hardliners to southern Christian fundamentalists) can possibly even hint at wanting to see "use of force" at this time against Iran. It's the craziest thing I've ever heard. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 11:50:55 AM | We can win the 'war' in Iran easily, just as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I thought this was a serious discussion, I'll be bowing out now and leave you end of the worlders to your fun :)
But I have to say thanks for the best joke I've heard all week this is the first really gut wrenching laugh I've experienced in a while. Thank you. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 12:32:53 PM | But I have to say thanks for the best joke I've heard all week this is the first really gut wrenching laugh I've experienced in a while. Thank you.
Maybe you should have bothered to read my entire post and its conclusion in context, but I suppose nuance and logic aren't your strong suits. But funny sarcastic comments are! Because missile defense systems really work! Because Star Wars and other programs like it aren't only useful as a means to instill a false sense of security and placate the masses! Because terrorists would even bother with missiles anyway!
Now thats funny! | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 12:55:31 PM | I agree Nero,
I also think such an invasion would only bolster Iranian support for their government's actions. An invasion would, in a sense, 'validate' Admadinejad's attempts at obtaining nuclear devices as a deterrent to invasion. (Which is what I think he's really trying to do, akin to Cuba's nukes once upon a time.)
Iran has a pretty well educated and informed population with real Democratic sympathies. I think we forget that Admadinejad is an elected official and up for re-election fairly soon. Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, the Iranian Presidency is term limited. Meaning, Admadinejah is not a dictator in the sense that Saddam was and Kim Jong is.
Now, I may have some serious quibbles with the ambitions and methods used within Iran, and I do think they are major sponsors of terror. I appreciate that the president indeed has near dictatorial power. That being said, they are a RELATIVELY open society already, at least in comparison to Iraq. There are already many intellectual dissidents that receive publicity. American style consumerism, for good or bad, is already taking hold, such that the government has recently had to ban its public endorsement by celebrities. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=4&article_id=93912
They also feel the need to crackdown on criticism: http://www.payvand.com/news/07/oct/1216.html
That tells me the Iranian gov't sees it as a real threat to its hold.
All this, to me at least, points to a society already moving towards liberalization. But I also get the impression they're are a very proud people who will not respond to bullying. If anything, an American invasion would not help this democratic transition but stifle it. I want to stop their support of terrorism as much as anyone, but I've said time and time again the war against terrorism cannot be won with force. Terrorists don't really use weapons anyway, they use fear and anarchy. So, the best we can do is counter that with hope and stability in terms of economic progress. IMO, the best way to stop people from giving up their lives is to give them something more to lose. Military invasion impoverishes a nation and therefore does the opposite. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 1:12:40 PM | ^^ Correct. It is a democracy , and there certainly are burgeoning anti-gov't undergrounds (of various political strains) both in Iran and in the Persian diaspora as well. Although Iran is not a completely fair democracy, admittedly (just as many throughout the world are not....).
The Ayatollahs Supreme Ruling Council (12 Shi'ite clerics) led by Khomeini's successor, the hardliner Ali Khameini, always has the supreme say over the (elected) president. The president does have term limits, yes, and his term will be ending relatively soon (I think it is in '09). Not sure when the Majlis / parliamentary elections will be held again. The Iranian parliament even has allotted spaces guaranteed for its religious and ethnic minorities, true to Islamic principle, such as Chaldean Catholics, Zoroastrians, and even a token few Iranian Jews.
The problem with the parliamentary elections there, what keeps moderates and reformers (like Khatami -- who once made it to the presidency and tried to open talks with the US -- and Rafsanjani) down is the fact that the Ruling Council only allows them to run for about half or slightly more than half of the available seats. It would be , in American terms, like a GOP hardliner suddenly decreeing that Democrats can only run for half or 52% (for example) of available Congressional seats.
So they really have to rally themselves, the liberals and moderates and reformers, to get even a narrow majority in the Majlis / parliament. The president does not have anything approaching dictatorial power there however, but Ahmadinejad unfortunately has been able to stack a lot of the Cabinet-type positions with men favorable to him. Again, hopefully they will all be elected out come next elections, but who can say.
If the US and Israel continue to menace them, after all , the Iranians may react just like Americans and find a majority (if only slight majority) of the voters rallying towards the party of the perceived "tough on defense" incumbent as opposed to someone new who may have a perhaps softer approach but might be looked at as weak vis-a-vis the perceived Israeli-American menace.
Still, under the Islamic Revolutionary regime, though Iranians are certainly not truly "free" in the relatively complete Western sense of the word, they are arguably quite freer than they were under the US-installed Shah and his fearsome CIA-trained SAVAK squads. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 1:36:26 PM | You obviously know more about the Iranian governmental organization than me, but all that just strengthens my assessment. Thanks for the info. I think the real solution is just to entangle our economies such that war is simply out of the question. I know that sounds rather New World Orderish, but it really the best insurance of peace. If thats the priority. We never see liberal capitalisms waging war on one another.
But then again, that does nothing to counteract non-state actors and may even provide them greater funding. Kinda a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/10/2008 5:02:29 PM | dracko ~ I think your points taken in message# 146 are pretty much 'right on the money', if you will excuse the pun, and I very much agree that a combination of economic rapprochement and time would pretty much resolve the issue of Iran heading in the direction we would like it to go, and that coercion and threats will have an opposite and undesired effect.
That is if we actually seek for a more liberal, prosperous, and free Iran, and that we honestly desire to have normal and better relations with the Iranian people and a Western friendly Iranian government. And therein lies the rub, as I believe the neoconservatives despite their rhetoric about freedom, have a very different agenda, one that runs exactly counter to their public statements, for how else to interpret the policies they recommend?
What I mean is, these are not stupid people, they understand very well the liberalizing influences that a bit of time and free economic exchange might yield, and they also understand that any attack on Iran is probably the most certain way to get Iran to actively pursue a nuclear weapon as deterrent. The question then needs to be asked, why would they want that?
Thinking in the Machiavellian way of the Neocons, one needs to examine their fervent wishes, utmost desires, and basic needs.
1. A Continuation and escalation of traditional big ticket US defense spending, remember it takes a huge military to implement an empire and neocons are firm believers in Pax Americana.
2. Unconditional and escalating financial and military support for Israel ... no price is too big to pay.
3. The Missile Defense Shield
4. The Weaponization of Space
5. Their own continued Relevance, Power, and Enrichment.
6. The Utilization of those 'Enduring Bases' in Iraq as a Strategic Asset
7. The Transformation of the American Culture and Political System
This is probably rather cynical, but in thinking of that, how does a pacified Iran, or conversely a radicalized and capable Iranian enemy (although weakened), contribute or deter from the accomplishment of goals and objectives on that list?
caw | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 7/11/2008 2:06:21 PM | | the consequences would be a no win situation for all sides,if you get time look up on you tube iraq for sale.also look up william or bill cooper on you tube,or look for council for foreign relations or the illuminati.it might explain the planned attack on iran more clearly . | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
