War with Iran - over under

[Hoss]

I put the over at 5 months. For those of you that don't know the gambling lingo, that means that we are seeing whether the US will be at war with Iran in less than 5 months or not.

And let's define war - ongoing and escalating battles between Iranian and American troops.

[dingo]

If that happened, everyone should send the UN in to liberate the US.

Cause enough is enough.

[Hoss]

Some info

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/12/note_from_flynt_leverett_most_important_parts_of_b ush_speech_about_iran_not_iraq

I asked former CIA and Bush administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett for a quick summary of his thoughts on President Bush's Address to the Nation.

Here is Flynt Leverett's response:

The most important things that President Bush said last night dealt with Iran, not Iraq:

According to the President, the Iranians are providing "material support” to attacks on U.S. forces. That is a casus belli. It fits in with the administration’s escalating campaign -- encompassing rhetoric and detentions of Iranian officials in Iraq -- to blame Iran for a strategically significant part of the ongoing instability and violence in Iraq.

In the context of describing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Iraq, the President also noted the importance of securing Iraq’s borders. I suspect that at least some of the additional U.S. soldiers going to Iraq will end up on the border with Iran.

Moreover, the President strongly implied that the U.S. military would start going after targets in countries neighboring Iraq to disrupt supply networks for insurgents and militias.

The deployment of a second carrier strike group to the theater -- confirmed in the speech -- is clearly directed against Iran. Since, in contrast to previous U.S. air campaigns in the Gulf, military planners developing contingencies for striking target sets in Iran must assume that the United States would not be able to use land-based air assets in theater (because of political opposition in the region), they are surely positing a force posture of at least two, and possible three carrier strike groups to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft.

Similarly, the President’s announcement that additional Patriot batteries would go to the Gulf is clearly directed against Iran. We have previously deployed Patriot batteries to the region to deal with the Iraqi SCUD threat. Today, the only missile threat in the region for the Patriot to address is posed, at least theoretically, by Iran’s Shihab-3.

In sum, the administration is laying the rhetorical and operational foundations for implementing a presidential decision to initiate military operations against Iran.

[Agent Helix]

I don't see how it's at all conceivable, from a standpoint of pure logistics, that we CAN go to war with Iran.

[Hoss]

I don't see how it's at all conceivable, from a standpoint of pure logistics, that we CAN go to war with Iran.

Sure we can - as long as we willing to allow Iraq to go to heck, never allow any troops to leave the service and go crazy increasing the size of our armed forces. And as long as you are willing to realize that George Bush means it when he says that this war will end under another POTUS' watch, sees this as a decades long conflict and is willing to use tactical nuclear strikes.

The thing with GW is that even now, many people still aren't willing to expect the worst possible case scenario from him. The moment you realize that the worst case scenario is on the table, things change.

[Agent Helix]

Man, it's not even noon here. Can we at least wait a couple hours before discussing the Apocalypse?

[Ontir]

It will depend on how Congress responds to his new plan.

If they see it as something that works WITH the work, currently being done by our troops in Iraq, and increases their security, which can help lead to our ultimate withdrawl, they'll fund it, and it'll go forward. If they see it as "Dubya's Cambodia," they'll pull the purse-strings, and keep 'em tight!

[Drew Van T.]

And let's define war - ongoing and escalating battles between Iranian and American troops.

Does that mean a land war, or an air war? If it's the latter, I put it at under 5 months, yes.

[Agent Helix]

You know, we haven't had a good SEA war in a while. Let's go to war with Spain again.

[Naldo]

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! ....never get involved in a land war in Asia...

[Drew Van T.]

You know, we haven't had a good SEA war in a while. Let's go to war with Spain again.

Actually, any war with Iran, even one that's mostly fought in the air, will no doubt involve the sea. Iran controls the all-important strait, the bottleneck at Hormuz, where much of the region's oil must pass.

[Agent Helix]

Yeah, but I'm talking a NICE sea. You know, where we could go touring afterwards.

[Shellhead]

Sure we can - as long as we willing to allow Iraq to go to heck, never allow any troops to leave the service and go crazy increasing the size of our armed forces. And as long as you are willing to realize that George Bush means it when he says that this war will end under another POTUS' watch, sees this as a decades long conflict and is willing to use tactical nuclear strikes.

The thing with GW is that even now, many people still aren't willing to expect the worst possible case scenario from him. The moment you realize that the worst case scenario is on the table, things change.

The worst case scenario from Bush that I can imagine is that he does attack Iran, and then tries to use that as justification for not stepping down if a Democrat wins the election in 2008. After all the anti-Constitutional crap that Dubya has pulled so far, I can just picture him saying that he needs to stay President until the war has been won by us. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but I now consider it within the realm of possibility.

[Naldo]

Actually, any war with Iran, even one that's mostly fought in the air, will no doubt involve the sea. Iran controls the all-important strait, the bottleneck at Hormuz, where much of the region's oil must pass.

Which is a good reason to have 2 or three carrier groups in the area.

[Naldo]

The worst case scenario from Bush that I can imagine is that he does attack Iran, and then tries to use that as justification for not stepping down if a Democrat wins the election in 2008. After all the anti-Constitutional crap that Dubya has pulled so far, I can just picture him saying that he needs to stay President until the war has been won by us. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but I now consider it within the realm of possibility.Not even remotely likely.

[dingo]

Not even remotely likely.

I disagree.

If someone told me some of the things he would do in his presidency prior to it, I would of laughed.

Now, it's not so funny.

[geordiesteve]

I don't see how it's at all conceivable, from a standpoint of pure logistics, that we CAN go to war with Iran.

I agree. Because not even a complete idiot like George Dub-yah would go to war with another country right now. Also his people wouldn't let him, so it just won't happen.

Also there's no such thing anymore as a clean war (as in go in there, blow things up, walk away victorious and then help with the rebuilding) as Bush is slowly finding out, so as well as 20 thousand more troops for Iraq, how many would be needed to tackle another country in a full scale war? A heck of a lot more. Also, the dollar is so damn weak now, the economy is groaning. It's not gonna happen.

[cactusmaac]

Not going to happen. Iran has three times the size and three times the population of Iraq. Going to war would set off Shia agitations and attacks all across the ME, especially in Lebanon, Qatar (where CENTCOM is based), Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Oil prices would go through the roof, the Iranian moderate movement would be wiped out and India would be extremely pissed off given that it's banking on a pipeline through Iran to service it's energy needs.

The US will hope bad results for conservatives in upcoming Iranian elections will continue to undercut them. Other than that, it's far too big a nut to crack.

[Naldo]

I disagree.

If someone told me some of the things he would do in his presidency prior to it, I would of laughed.

Now, it's not so funny.

And who is going to support this? It's ludicrous. Remember that there's an election. A President-elect would have been chosen. The swearing in would occur no matter what anyone said. What you suggest is literally, figuratively and physically impossible.

There is no Praetorian Guard protecting GWB or anyone else for that matter.

[Shellhead]

Not even remotely likely.

A sane Republican president would have dumped Cheney at least a year ago, and brought in a designated successor as the new veep. For example, John McCain would have a heckuva headstart on the 2008 election if he was serving as Vice-President right now. But Bush hasn't done that, he's kept the wildly unpopular Dick Cheney around, and Cheney has made it very clear that he won't be running for President, ever.

[Serik]

I honestly believe the only thing preventing President Bush from escalating hostilities with Iran are the economic ramifications. Oil would easily top $100/barrel, especially if ethnic conflict erupts throughout the entire Middle East. The world economy would come to a crashing halt if oil prices jumped like that.

We should note, however, that both the Senate and Defense Secretary Gates are very much against attacking Iran.

[Merey]

I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la". This shit seriously scares me.

[Typo Lad]

I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la". This shit seriously scares me.
You and the rest of the US.

I'm thinking of moving to Israel now. At least the facist elements of the goverment are honest there.

[Dreadstar]

I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la". This shit seriously scares me.


Oh c'mon. Don't do that, this shit is quality entertainment.

I only need to figure out which psychotropic they used in the water supply, and my curiosity will be sated.

[Michael P]

So, his answer to the "legacy" question is apparently to be the man who started WWIII.

[StoneGold]

Are there even the resources? The only way to do this is to admit to total failure in Iraq. And do you think they really want to do that? Iraq is a victory we just haven't achieved yet.

[phoenixrising]

Whether or not we *plan* to go to war with Iran is open for debate. We might not have a choice. All of this posturing and prodding by Bush may one day be asnwered with a missile right up the ass.

[StoneGold]

Whether or not we *plan* to go to war with Iran is open for debate. We might not have a choice. All of this posturing and prodding by Bush may one day be asnwered with a missile right up the ass.

Missile seems unlikely, unless it's an attack on American forces in Iraq, or Israel.But yes, a war in Iran would more than likely need Iran to start it.

[Shellhead]

Once we send the surge troops to Iraq, this might be a convenient time for North Korea to invade South Korea. Even more so if we attack Iran, spreading ourselves even more thin.

Btw, I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry for North Korea, and this is the opening paragraph:

"The Brandon Yang's Papa's Stinker Dog Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as BranBran, is an Eastern Asian country situated on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula. Its capital is Pyongyang. Its northern border is shared mostly with China, although it shares an 18.3 km (11.4 mile) border with Russia along the Tumen River, in the far northeast corner of the country. To the south, it is bordered by South Korea, with which it formed one territorial unit until being divided into two states following World War II."

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

Nice reminder of the limitations of Wikipedia. Needless to say, "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

[Drew Van T.]

Not going to happen. Iran has three times the size and three times the population of Iraq. Going to war would set off Shia agitations and attacks all across the ME, especially in Lebanon, Qatar (where CENTCOM is based), Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Oil prices would go through the roof, the Iranian moderate movement would be wiped out and India would be extremely pissed off given that it's banking on a pipeline through Iran to service it's energy needs.

Yes, maybe, and yes, but that doesn't answer the question: why should this administration care about those possibilities?

Why should a president whose legacy may well be screwed up no matter what he does, who has nothing to lose in that regard, give priority to such considerations?

As soon as the "surge" option has failed to yield victory in Iraq - which should become evident around March or so - all he has to look forward to is a slow withdrawal from Iraq and two very anemic, powerless years in office. In other words: in March he'll realize that he's got nothing to lose (we do, but he doesn't) by pulling the trigger on Iran.

Although, again, I think it'll just be a massive bombardment, supposedly aimed at the sites where Iran is doing nuclear research.

Besides, neoconservatives have been drawing plans to attack Iran for at least a decade, next to the plan they were drawing to attack Iraq. Bush knows that at the very least, he'll be pleasing the people whose advice he has been taking from the very beginning. That will be some sort of accomplishment, to his eyes.

[Michael P]

Yes, maybe, and yes, but that doesn't answer the question: why should this administration care about those possibilities?

Why should a president whose legacy may well be screwed up no matter what he does, who has nothing to lose in that regard, give priority to such considerations?

Basic human compassion?

Oh, right, sorry. Forgot who we were talking about.

[Shellhead]

Iraq is a victory we just haven't achieved yet.

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Gotta love that newspeak.

[Mike Smash!]

I imagine that Bush will do the changeover that he did with Afghanistan. Invade Iran or start some airstrikes and start redeploying the Iraq troops out while the camera is on Iran.

And while we're not paying attention to Iraq anymore, declare victory like they did in Afghanistan and since the news stops covering it, most Americans won't know that it's actually gone to shit!

USA! USA!

[Mike Smash!]

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Gotta love that newspeak.

Bullshit. We're at war with Eurasia. Eastasia is our friend. They've ALWAYS been our friend...I think.

[J. Robb]

Given the favour the US has done by toppling the Iraqi government, the Bush administration is practically an ally of Iran's. They're certainly the best thing that's ever happened to President Ahmadinejad- without the US's sudden aggression, Iran would probably still be on the road to reform and westernization and would have never elected a hardliner like him.

[cactusmaac]

Yes, maybe, and yes, but that doesn't answer the question: why should this administration care about those possibilities?

Why should a president whose legacy may well be screwed up no matter what he does, who has nothing to lose in that regard, give priority to such considerations?

As soon as the "surge" option has failed to yield victory in Iraq - which should become evident around March or so - all he has to look forward to is a slow withdrawal from Iraq and two very anemic, powerless years in office. In other words: in March he'll realize that he's got nothing to lose (we do, but he doesn't) by pulling the trigger on Iran.


If he's going to invade anywhere, it'll be Waziristan and Baluchistan where the Taliban\Al Qaeda have been reconstituting themselves while the US has distracted itself with Iraq, and Pakistan hasn't done much to shake things up either.

[Iangould]

I don't see how it's at all conceivable, from a standpoint of pure logistics, that we CAN go to war with Iran.

One of the frustrations of the current situation in Iraq for the guys in washington has to be that they have this enormous strategic arsenal which is effectively useless there.

A war on Iran need not involve a full-scale ground invasion, the US has plenty of fighters, bombers and cruise missiles available.

[Iangould]

Actually, any war with Iran, even one that's mostly fought in the air, will no doubt involve the sea. Iran controls the all-important strait, the bottleneck at Hormuz, where much of the region's oil must pass.

The Iranians will start out by trying to block the straits, militarily they'll be no match for the US but so long as there's even a theoretical risk to shipping, the major oil companies (and their insurers) won't go near the Persian Gulf.

If the naval threat is removed, the Iranians will probably try to escalate their attack on the west's oil supply by promoting uprisings amonst the shia majority in states like Bahrain and dubai and in the Persian Gulf provinces of Saudi Arabia.

[Iangould]

Not going to happen. Iran has three times the size and three times the population of Iraq. Going to war would set off Shia agitations and attacks all across the ME, especially in Lebanon, Qatar (where CENTCOM is based), Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Oil prices would go through the roof, the Iranian moderate movement would be wiped out and India would be extremely pissed off given that it's banking on a pipeline through Iran to service it's energy needs.

The US will hope bad results for conservatives in upcoming Iranian elections will continue to undercut them. Other than that, it's far too big a nut to crack.

These are all good reasons why attacking Iran would be an extremely stupid thing to do.

When has that ever stopped Bush in the past?

[Iangould]

Are there even the resources? The only way to do this is to admit to total failure in Iraq. And do you think they really want to do that? Iraq is a victory we just haven't achieved yet.

No. No.

Iraq is a victory we WOULD have achieved if we weren't forced to withdraw our troops to face the even greater threat of Iran.

Seriously, an attack on Iran will ignite violence in Iraq on an even greater level than currently, any serious plan for war with Iran has to, at least, implicitly involve throwing Iraq to the wolves.

[Iangould]

You and the rest of the US.

I'm thinking of moving to Israel now. At least the facist elements of the goverment are honest there.

You could move here - the main fascist element in our government is rapidly nearing retirement (involuntarily if not voluntarily).

[BlairH]

Once we send the surge troops to Iraq, this might be a convenient time for North Korea to invade South Korea. Even more so if we attack Iran, spreading ourselves even more thin.

Btw, I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry for North Korea, and this is the opening paragraph:

"The Brandon Yang's Papa's Stinker Dog Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as BranBran, is an Eastern Asian country situated on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula. Its capital is Pyongyang. Its northern border is shared mostly with China, although it shares an 18.3 km (11.4 mile) border with Russia along the Tumen River, in the far northeast corner of the country. To the south, it is bordered by South Korea, with which it formed one territorial unit until being divided into two states following World War II."

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

Nice reminder of the limitations of Wikipedia. Needless to say, "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Wikipedia for the win!

North Korea, officially The be Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), is the best happiest richest land in the world.Do not edit this or you wil face the merciless wrath of Kim Jong il and eternal president Kim il sung. They are the most brightest/smartest/strongest/sexiest/best leader saviors of the whole wide universe. an East Asian countstry situated on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula. Its capital is Pyongyang. Its northern border is shared mostly with China, although 18.3 km (11.4 mile) is shared with Russia along the Tumen River, in the far northeast corner of the country. To the south, it is bordered by South Korea, with which it formed one nation until the division following World War II.

...and to think I contemplated using wikipedia in the past as an actual source.

[Iangould]

...and to think I contemplated using wikipedia in the past as an actual source.

The point is to read it critically and check its sources - like any other reference.

[Alex]

I actually don't think full out war will happen.
Probably bomb some stuff though, in more then 5 months.

[(A)//(E)]

The worst case scenario from Bush that I can imagine is that he does attack Iran, and then tries to use that as justification for not stepping down if a Democrat wins the election in 2008. After all the anti-Constitutional crap that Dubya has pulled so far, I can just picture him saying that he needs to stay President until the war has been won by us. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but I now consider it within the realm of possibility.
Fuuny, I've been saying that same thing for a couple years now.

[BlairH]

Maybe the US will not need to halt Iran's nuclear program?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/77a52e5c-a2ab-11db-a187-0000779e2340.html

Although, I'm sure US troops would be caught up in the counter-attack.

[Alex]

Fuuny, I've been saying that same thing for a couple years now.


When he isn't president anymore, i want to hear about how he is staying young by feeding on the repressed thoughts of the freedom lovers, who have been kept from speaking their mind due to the thought police he has put in place.
And i want to go to his moat protected, perpetualy dark castle, and eat the human flesh he serves me on his table, which is made of the bones of gay people and abortion doctors, whom he had burned in ovens, but pulled the bones out last minute, while i wipe my mouth on Constitution napkins and the scalps of children who were killed for saying anti war things on their blogs, between talking about how awesome the new Brand New album was and what they had for lunch.
So no, he will not do that, because it would ruin his nefarious plot and my future as servent to the Great Lord of Darkness and Pain.

[Adam C]

Nice reminder of the limitations of Wikipedia. Needless to say, "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

To echo what Ian said, look at the article's talk page (the talk page). I don't remember seeing that on past iterations of the article and following the dates listed in the talk page in the neutrality dispute seems to be over people having inserted non-NPOV commentary into the article and commentaries on use of the term "democratic" in the country's official title. None of which seems to be in the current version of the article I am checking (which is about 8:22 am Central time).

Moreover, looking at the history page for acts of vandalism (all committed by IP numbers) mostly seem to have been reverted not long after they were committed. In fact according to the talk page, shortly after the atomic test they put a vandal lock on the article so only registered users could edit it.

So yes Wikipedia is limited and open to vandalism or misinformation. On the other hand let's keep in mind the checks against that and how short lived wiki vandalism usually is. I've gotten some good information from it on the Iraq War and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict because both articles were festooned with citations.

[Shellhead]

To echo what Ian said, look at the article's talk page (the talk page). I don't remember seeing that on past iterations of the article and following the dates listed in the talk page in the neutrality dispute seems to be over people having inserted non-NPOV commentary into the article and commentaries on use of the term "democratic" in the country's official title. None of which seems to be in the current version of the article I am checking (which is about 8:22 am Central time).

Moreover, looking at the history page for acts of vandalism (all committed by IP numbers) mostly seem to have been reverted not long after they were committed. In fact according to the talk page, shortly after the atomic test they put a vandal lock on the article so only registered users could edit it.

So yes Wikipedia is limited and open to vandalism or misinformation. On the other hand let's keep in mind the checks against that and how short lived wiki vandalism usually is. I've gotten some good information from it on the Iraq War and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict because both articles were festooned with citations.

I enjoy Wikipedia, but I find the citations are generally more reliable. Actually, I love Wikipedia, because I was the kind of kid who sometimes read the encyclopedia for fun, not just for reference. It's just that Wikipedia is somewhat less reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. If not for the vandalism and the people with agendas altering the articles, Wikipedia has the potential to be a fantastic source of information, eventually containing the collective knowledge of the human race.

[Royal]

A sane Republican president would have dumped Cheney at least a year ago, and brought in a designated successor as the new veep.

A sane Republican would've framed Straussian philosphy as an outdated, obsolete way of thinking and would have treated it's followers just like communism.

Minus the blackballing mind you.

[Loren]

The worst case scenario from Bush that I can imagine is that he does attack Iran, and then tries to use that as justification for not stepping down if a Democrat wins the election in 2008. After all the anti-Constitutional crap that Dubya has pulled so far, I can just picture him saying that he needs to stay President until the war has been won by us. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but I now consider it within the realm of possibility.

Sure, if every Republican strategist and advisor in DC took the week off and Bush fell off the wagon.

Remember the public outcry when Giuliani floated the idea of extending his term after the 9/11 attacks? And that was just about two weeks after the attacks, and it didn't involve any refusal to leave office. Rather, he sought some initial support from the Democratic legislature to allow for an extended or third term.

And that still bombed so bad that it soiled Giuliani's post-9/11 reputation.

If Bush made any serious kind of move to do what you're suggesting, it would splinter the party, and unite the other half of the country (the ones who voted for the Democrat) against the GOP. He'd be practically guaranteeing that the Republicans would lose control of the federal government for a decade or more. Every election would remind us about how the last Republican President refused to cede his office to his elected successor.

In fact, it could potentially lead to civil war if Bush held out. The Twentieth Amendment states when the President's term ends, and when his successor's begins (noon on January 20). There's no requirement that the successor has to take office through an elaborate public Inaugural ceremony. The successor could simply take an oath before a sympathetic judge, then publicly declare that he was the President, and order Bush out of the White House.

If Bush was obscenely stubborn and still refused, and assuming that anybody actually took his side, then the country would find itself smack dab in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. The new President would try to move into the White House and take control of the federal government; Bush would have to take some kind of measure to stop him. Which would involve giving orders to subordinates and federal employees who might have a certain loyalty to Bush, but who couldn't deny their constitutional obligation to the new President. Major rifts would occur, almost certainly in the strong favor of the new guy. If the legislature is still Democrat-controlled, then they'll naturally side with the new guy. They'd ignore Bush's orders, and follow his successor's. No court would side with Bush.

The only way it could end would be with Bush being forced out of office with a legacy tarnished to the point of being pitch black. And the GOP isn't so resoundingly stupid as to allow that to happen.

[Iangould]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

Iran nuke work seems slow, puzzling West

VIENNA, Austria -
Iran's uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said Thursday.
...
Still, Tehran's reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz when it seems to have the technical know-how is puzzling the diplomatic and intelligence communities — with some saying it was potentially worrisome.

Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.

While the world's attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.

A pretty good sign of delusional thinking is that ANY evidence will be seized upon to support the delusion.

If the Natanz facility was on schedule or ahead of schedule it'd be proof that Iran was racing towards having a bomb and needed to be stopped.

The Natanz facility is behind schedule, this is interpreted as evidence that the Iranians must have another secret facility which has somehow defied discovery by the US and the IAEA and therefore are obviously building a bomb and must be stopped.

[Serik]

True. If Iraq showed us anything, it's that if someone is bent on war they'll get it - regardless of the evidence.

[gary bolt]

I think I read somewhere that the US military is structured so that it can theoretically fight three seperate conflicts simultaneously (not on home territory, thank you very much). If that's true they could role Iran in with Iraq so that it is all one big horrible regional mess and still slap down North Korea. The wild card with this strategy is that they would still have a third option and could happily go after Hugo Chavez in Venezuala. I mean he says bad things about America, his country is rich with oil (like Iraq and Iran) and he is a socialist.

[Serik]

Yeah, but they'd have to call up all the Reserves and the Guard and probably relocate all the troops in Japan, South Korea and Germany.

Oh, don't forget the cost. Wow, I don't even want to think of the cost.

[WoodenDummy]

This isn't the 1940's anymore. If the US opened all hell on Iran then yes they would win even without nukes, could they do that these days? No.

[estee]

I actually don't think full out war will happen.
Probably bomb some stuff though, in more then 5 months.

I agree with this happening.

Go in, strike all the supposed nuclear targets and then leave.

Or better still, go in loaded for bear, kick the holy hell out of the Iranian government and then just leave. That's it. No sticking around to help foster democracy or any of that other crap, as it obviously doesn't work.

Just push your weight around, America, it's not like anyone can really stop you. ;)

[Monkey]

This isn't the 1940's anymore. If the US opened all hell on Iran then yes they would win even without nukes, could they do that these days? No.

Dunno why that posted in my old account, I've been trying to get into that for weeks and couldn't get in! :S

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Were stretched thin at the moment. But if the Iran situation does happen , odds are you'll see a move to bring back the Draft. With that being floated around now I don't doubt you'd see them to bring troop levels up.

[Drew Van T.]

Or better still, go in loaded for bear, kick the holy hell out of the Iranian government and then just leave. That's it. No sticking around to help foster democracy or any of that other crap, as it obviously doesn't work.

Who would take control of the country after that? The same theocratic hardliners that were in charge before, of course. They'd no doubt be able to rebuild everything quite quickly, being more firmly in control than before, with less dissenters.

Being attacked by anyone has the effect of giving the nationalists an enormous boost and silencing every other voice. (Of course it does, and it was quite evident in the US on 9/11.) At the point of being attacked, it doesn't matter to the people what kind of regime they're living under, as long as it is doing everything it can to defend the country.

It would be an act of genocidal madness that accomplishes nothing.

[Alex]

Were stretched thin at the moment. But if the Iran situation does happen , odds are you'll see a move to bring back the Draft. With that being floated around now I don't doubt you'd see them to bring troop levels up.

The only time the draft idea has been floated around was twice by a democrat, the same democrat, as a political ploy that failed.
There won't be a draft, the draft isn't coming back. the republicans just got punched in the face, bringing the draft back would destroy the party utterly in the publics eyes.
Air force, bomb bomb bomb, like the good old days. Will it remove the threat? No, i don't think so, but we haven't lost the ability to bomb stuff.

[BlairH]

Or better still, go in loaded for bear, kick the holy hell out of the Iranian government and then just leave. That's it. No sticking around to help foster democracy or any of that other crap, as it obviously doesn't work.

I always thought the US forces worked better as a strike force rather than as an occupation force.

[Bear]

And this guy doesn't deserve impeachment? Just like Cambodia.

"The President can bomb whom ever he likes."

Unbelievable.

[Hoss]

I wanted to revisit this thread in light of recent developments.

The over under is now at about 4 months.

4 months before we are at war with Iran.

Any new opinions or confirmations of old opinions?

[Charles RB]

I'm going with over four months on the premise that Britain gets dragged along too - and no way is that going to happen until after Blair steps down. He hasn't got long to go, I doubt the rest of his party (and especially wannabe-leader Brown) will let him start another war on his way out and leave them stuck with it.

This is assuming America waits for Britain, of course. They might go yank Australia into it instead.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm still going with "it ain't gonna happen".

It's become more and more obvious that the administration is trying to make its lies stick, and that those lies just bloody aren't sticking.

[Hoss]

I'm still going with "it ain't gonna happen".

It's become more and more obvious that the administration is trying to make its lies stick, and that those lies just bloody aren't sticking.

They're going to purposely fumble and stumble into it...

[Winslow]

There's no way it's gonna happen.

Bush can't even drum up support for an additional 20,000 troops, how is he going to convince we need yet another war?

And from what I've read, Iran is at least a decade away from having a nuke, even if they continue at their current development pace.

[Citizen V]

I dont think America can fight Iran,the US`s forces are already drained by Iraq and Afganistan.Even so..Iran has said it will fight back if the USA does anything.America`s "war on terror" ends with Iraq.

[MJC]

Won't happen, simply for the fact that it'd be political suicide for everybody involved. The war in Iraq is already really unpopular (and we saw what happened to the Republicans because of it).

[berk]

I think the same thing I've thought for the last several months: the neo-cons would love to do it, but probably won't for a few different reasons: the continuing debacle in Iraq, the failure of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, having their intentions outed before they were able to fully prep the media, and significant opposition from other factions within the American ruling elite, including important in the Pentagon. No single one of these would have been sufficient on its own, but I think that taken together they'll probably be enough to prevent the air strikes envisaged by the PNAC-types in the administration.

[Hoss]

Those are all very logical reason.

However, all it takes is one border skirmish to go bad for a war to escalate. Plus, Cheney is crazy enough to convince Bush that if we somehow provoke the Iranians through "surgical" bombings or something else that the our country will have to follow. Right now, all Bush and Cheney care about is Iraq and their "legacy." They've literally given up on any domestic policy and could care less what their poll numbers look like. And lest anyone forget, Rumsfeld still has a desk at the pentagon as a "consultant."

I will never misunderestimate Bush's ability to screw something up - whether purposely or by mistake, screwing things up is how he rolls.

[Serik]

I just got this email from Senator Dianne Feinstein's office (I'm still a registered CA voter hehe). If you don't want war with Iran, write your congressmen!

...

I understand your concerns about this issue. I believe that the
United States should resolve its differences with Iran diplomatically,
through direct negotiations and dialogue with Iranian officials. We must
also work closely with our friends and allies in the international
community to pressure Iran to abandon its efforts to attain nuclear
weapons, cease its active support for terrorist groups, and become a
positive force for change in the Middle East.

The United States, together with its European allies, has
presented Iran with a package of incentives to halt its enrichment
program. Unfortunately, Iran did not respond positively to this offer and,
as a result, on December 23, 2006, the UN Security Council imposed
sanctions on the sale and transfer of nuclear-related materials to Iran.
Notwithstanding such measures, diplomatic efforts with Iran ought to
continue. Be assured that I will continue to monitor this situation closely,
bearing your concerns in mind.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[Alex]

I wanted to revisit this thread in light of recent developments.

The over under is now at about 4 months.

4 months before we are at war with Iran.

Any new opinions or confirmations of old opinions?

They are apprently making progress with North Korea, and some people are suggesting Ahmadinejad's(you know i copied that)comments have been tempered lately since the world, instead of the U.S., now feels he was coming on too strong.
Might be a good sign that things are being resolved inside the country...the puppets strings got tugged kinda hard, in other words.
It's weird, you hear the white house saying "Well yeah, we caught them sending weapons into iraq, but we don't want to go to war."
...So, thats a good sign, they are basicly saying "Oh we have proof, but it doesn't matter."Also, they keep talking about how they want to be 100% sure before they don't go to war...very fun if you like picking apart the words.

[Tages]

I dont think America can fight Iran,

Fight Iran, yes. In fact, any conventional battle between American and Iranian forces is going to be massively one-sided.

But Iraq is already unwinnable. If the Iranians jump in that just makes that simple fact all the more painfully obvious.

[Iangould]

Fight Iran, yes. In fact, any conventional battle between American and Iranian forces is going to be massively one-sided.

But Iraq is already unwinnable. If the Iranians jump in that just makes that simple fact all the more painfully obvious.


Fight? sure.

Occupy? Not a hope in hell given current troop levels and the lack of signficant numbers of allied troops.

I know I'm repeating myself here but:

Iran
Population 70,049,262
Surface area 1,648,195 km²

Iraq
Population 28,807,000
Surface area 438,317 km²

Two and a half times the population, almost four times the surface area.

If US generals were right that it would have taken 300,000 or mroe troops to properly occupy Iraq, how many would it take for Iran?

I suspect that the administration is considering, if anything, an air campaign against Iran, targeting first its nuclear facilities then its conventional armed forces.

But I doubt that'll acheive the outcomes they want.

[OzBat!]

I went with poll option 3. It's not gonna be long.

Israel preemptively bombed Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the 80s, the USA invaded Iraq over all sorts of hashed together claims and guesswork. I don't think either want a full on war and invasion or occupation is simply a ludicrous suggestion at this point. But I'm absolutely certain preemptive strikes will be made.

The reason for this? There's an article (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453711.9284722223.html) that goes into some details about the threat from EMP attack. it all reads very much like a think tank worse case scenario, but tucked right down at the very bottom is the bit that makes you think... n Iran — the most unabashed state sponsor of international terrorism today — some theorists have argued that the key to defeating the United States lies in attacking its electronics. This is from an Iranian political military policy journal:

Once you confuse the enemy communication network, you can also disrupt the work of the enemy command and decision making center.

Even worse, today when you disable a country's military high command through disruption of communications you will, in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country. . . . If the world's industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then they will disintegrate within a few years. . . . American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot. ("Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," Nashriyeh e Siasi Nezami, 1999.)

And this implied threat may not be empty words. In addition to their successful ship launched Scud missile test, the Iranian military has reportedly performed tests of its Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missile in a manner consistent with an EMP attack scenario.Now, this in and of itself isn't reason to think that the USA will abandon all sense and rush into war right this instant. But, I recall reading elsewhere (can't find the source right now) that Iran has in the last couple of months been testing launching the Shehab 3 from cargo ships. A cargo ship could come within a few hundred miles of the Eastern US seaboard, launch a missile while still in international waters, and effectively wipe out all electronic communication for over 70% of the American population. This is one of the scenarios that could drive the USA to strike preemptively, and I believe Iran's testing along those lines will force the USA's hands.

How's that for a cheery premonition?

[Tages]

EMP-based weapons are fantastically overrated, and the majority of American military bases and essential government installations are shielded against it anyway. You'd cause a lot more damage, chaos and confusion with the explosion itself than the EMP.

[J. Robb]

This is a hilarious article:

U.S. admiral questions Iran's motives (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iran.us/)

Oh no, Iran is being "provocative and intimidating"! Unlike, say, the country that travelled around the world to invade two of Iran's neighbours... Sheesh.

[Charles RB]

Oh no, Iran is being "provocative and intimidating"!

Iran's been making eerie phone calls where it breathed heavily down the line and having pizzas delivered that America didn't order.

[Ray R.]

Ian's got it right, as usual.

We'd mop up the floor with them in a conventional tet-a-tet, but for what purpose, for how long, and any occupation is realistically nil with the army we currently have. Unless they institute a draft and stop depending on joysticks and smart bombs, all we're going to do is justify every mullah's prophecies from Tunis to Karachi as the evil bomber from the skies.

If anything we'll be doing bombing runs on "nuclear-related facilities" despite the loud protestations of the Russians, Chinese and half the U.N.

And I'd put the odds on that at slim at best. This is just saber-rattling, which is what we should have done with Iraq six years ago.

[Drew Van T.]

Just when you think Blair couldn't possibly sink any lower than he already had with Iraq, it seems like he's trying to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" naval incident in order to help pave the way for America to attack Iran.

[Charles RB]

Just when you think Blair couldn't possibly sink any lower than he already had with Iraq, it seems like he's trying to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" naval incident in order to help pave the way for America to attack Iran.

Just to be clear, are you refering to Iran capturing 15 British sailors who were in Iraqi territorial water?

[Citizen V]

The minute the USA goes to war with Iran,that`s when the USA will be crushed and its ego under foot.

[Sabrina_Fried]

OK, I am in a really pissy mood tonight (because I have to go to The Office tomorrow after a really bad weekend) but I'm voting over on this one because from my foreigner's perspective, a few things have to happen before the USA (and, presumably its allies and "poodle states" too) are even in a position where they will even be capable of staging a war with Iran and any allies and poodle states it may have, namely:

1. The USA will have to reduce the number of troops it has in other theatres, including Iraq and Afganistan to free up soldiers, and especially battle-experienced soldiers for the Iran invasion. The allies and poodles will then increase their presences in these theatres to compensate. For this reason, if war with Iran is what Bush really wants, he will NOT veto the recent vote to bring the troops home, but he will find some convenient excuse for at least some of them to stay, probably as part of a "non-combat rebuilding force" or something.

2. The USA will have to convert its economy towards total war in order to provide the equipment and supplies necessary to continue funding its war machine.

3. The USA will have to bring in some form of conscription to provide the necessary bodies to invade Iran and deal with the aftermath when Iran and its allies and sympathetic states retaliate.

4. Most importantly, both Total War and Conscription will have to become acceptable to the American public. That is to say, American civilians will have to accept personal sacrifice for the war effort.

4a. Conversely, I suppose the USA and their allies could just use THEIR nuclear aresenals to nuke Iran and their allies. But this of course would mean that American (and their allies) civilians would have to be made to accept the idea that their leaders would allow deliberate attacks on civilians, because a mushroom cloud doesn't care where it forms. Unfortunetly, this is exactly what the entire War of Terror was supposed to prevent.

5. The American government, regardless of whoever happens to be in charge of it, will somehow have to convince its allies to go along with everything above, because most of them will have to enact the same measures in their own countries. The poodles will do it anyway, at least until they grow a spine (Harper, I'm looking at you).

The above will need at least a year or two. After that point, the initial invasion will happen at the first convenient excuse, the USA-led invasion force will find out that the Iranian nuclear weapons program basically consists of an "inanimate carbon rod" replica some Iranian Simpsons' fan made, and we'll see a repeat of the Iraq war, only on a much larger scale until the Americans find someone else worth invading. Oil will go well over $100 a barrel, but no one will care. In North America since WWII we've reshaped our major cities so that we literally cannot live without oil. Thus we will buy it at any cost and just spend less on other things, like luxuries. Fortunetly, in a total war economy, there are few luxuries to be had for the masses anyway. Such things are unpatriotic.

Sabrina

[Drew Van T.]

Just to be clear, are you refering to Iran capturing 15 British sailors who were in Iraqi territorial water?

Do we have anything at all, beyond the claims of the British government itself, confirming that they weren't in Iranian waters?

The Iranians feel strongly about that stretch of water. When Saddam invaded Iran, there was a great deal of fighting centered around this very location. The British must have been perfectly aware of how sensitive the area is, which makes you wonder why they allowed themselves to veer off into it so far that they could be captured.

That sensitivity also explains why someone on the Iranian side was stupid enough to make a move on them, because doing so amounted to taking the Tonkin bait and swallowing it whole.

[Tages]

The minute the USA goes to war with Iran,that`s when the USA will be crushed and its ego under foot.

Not true. There is no way that a war with Iran, or anyone besides the Russians (who still have plenty of nukes pointed our way as we do theirs) for that matter, could crush the USA.

What it could do, however, is add to the things that are already exhausting the USA into collapsing in on itself.

A direct field confrontation between in the American and Iranian militaries is swatting a mosquito with a sledgehammer. But all they have to do is pull back into the cities and melt into the countryside and do what the Viet Cong did: bleed the foreign army dry.

[Kevin Vetter]

Drew do you have anything at all other than irans claims that they were in iranian waters? Seems a little odd that you automatically jump on england and say they are in the wrong and are trying to start something when all we have is one side saying they weren't somewhere that the other side claims they were. How do you know that it's not iran trying to start something instead of england?

[king mob]

Drew do you have anything at all other than irans claims that they were in iranian waters? Seems a little odd that you automatically jump on england and say they are in the wrong and are trying to start something when all we have is one side saying they weren't somewhere that the other side claims they were. How do you know that it's not iran trying to start something instead of england?


For one it's British sailors, not 'england', for two it's Tony Blair and he's a lying bastard.

[Charles RB]

Do we have anything at all, beyond the claims of the British government itself, confirming that they weren't in Iranian waters?

About as much as we have beyond the claims of Iran that they weren't in Iraqi waters.

The British must have been perfectly aware of how sensitive the area is, which makes you wonder why they allowed themselves to veer off into it so far that they could be captured.

IIRC, they've been in that exact same area before doing the same job (boarding and poking at merchant shipping) without anything happening.

And generally if a foreign navy strays close to you, you'd contact it and tell it to piss off, not nab its members at gunpoint, take them back with you and charge them with espionage. That's odd behaviour if you want someone to go away.

two it's Tony Blair and he's a lying bastard.

So's the Iranian government.

[Arawn]

Whether or not we *plan* to go to war with Iran is open for debate. We might not have a choice. All of this posturing and prodding by Bush may one day be asnwered with a missile right up the ass.

And Iran vowing to destroy Isreal and the US isn't prodding? Ahmadinejad has made public speaches promising death to the west, and that the US would bow down in fear before the might of the Iranian people.

As much as Bush appears to want a confrontation of Irans nuclear program. Iran wants a fight even more so.

[Drew Van T.]

And generally if a foreign navy strays close to you, you'd contact it and tell it to piss off, not nab its members at gunpoint, take them back with you and charge them with espionage. That's odd behaviour if you want someone to go away.

That's just it: who was in a better position to tell who to piss off? With all the massive hardware the Americans have lying around in the Gulf, that British boat could have had air support in a matter of minutes, telling the Iranian boat to back off. They have frickin' satellites monitoring the movements of Iranian ships down to the last centimeter. This was a very avoidable incident.

We know that Washington wants war with Iran, and we know that they (and Blair) have lied to start wars.

Also, now we suddenly have all these echoes and overtones of the much more famous Iran hostage crisis, which is far too convenient.

Don't let nationalist sentiment take over, Charles. That is exactly the kind of reaction Tony Blair wants you to have. This could in theory have been Polish sailors, or Georgian sailors, or any of the tiny band of servile idiots that are still cooperating with the "coalition" in Iraq.

Besides, now that they have them, the Iranians obviously want to exchange them, which is standard practice. There's no reason to think that those men won't be returned soon...unless, of course, war does break out before that happens.

We wouldn't even be talking about all this if Blair had been sensible enough to finally withdraw from Iraq after all this time.

[Tages]

And Iran vowing to destroy Isreal and the US isn't prodding? Ahmadinejad has made public speaches promising death to the west, and that the US would bow down in fear before the might of the Iranian people.

As much as Bush appears to want a confrontation of Irans nuclear program. Iran wants a fight even more so.

1. Iran vowing to destroy Israel is a lie. The quote that is commonly used to justify this was mistranslated.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitc...-hitchens.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C22%5Cstory_22-2-2006_pg4_15

2. Ahmadinejad's speeches are all bluster. I will repeat this until people get it: the President of Iran is a figurehead with very little actual power. He is the face of the Iranian government, but the real power is with the Mullahs.

The President before him, Khatami, tried to get democratic reform in Iran and failed. Yet supposedly his successor in the same position is supposed to have the ability to singlehandedly start a war with a foreign hyperpower.

3. The Iranian government does not want a fight with the U.S. They are assholes, but they aren't suicidal, which is what provoking a war with America would be.

[Drew Van T.]

Very good, Tages. Now, let us let Wikipedia enlighten us a little about how significant this waterway is to the Iranians:

Conflicting territorial claims and disputes over navigation rights between Iran and Iraq (in the Shatt al-Arab waterway) were among the main factors for the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1980 to 1988, when the pre-1980 status quo was restored. The Iraqi cities of Basra and Umm Qasr are situated along this river, both of which are major ports, as well as the Iranian cities of Abadan and Khorramshahr.

Of course, this sensitivity no doubt applies to the Iraqi side too. The reason we have no incidents of Iraqi ships trying to out-posture Iranian ships is most likely because Iraq is not a sovereign nation at this time.

Control of the waterway and its use as a border have been a source of contention between the predecessors of the Iranian and Iraqi states since a peace treaty signed in 1639 between the Persian and the Ottoman Empires, which divided the territory according to tribal customs and loyalties, without attempting a rigorous land survey. The tribes on both sides of the lower waterway, however, are Marsh Arabs, and the Ottoman Empire claimed to represent them. Tensions between the opposing empires that extended across a wide range of religious, cultural and political conflicts, led to the outbreak of hostilities in the 19th century and eventually yielded the Second Treaty of Erzurum between the two parties, in 1847, after protracted negotiations, which included British and Russian delegates. Even afterwards, backtracking and disagreements continued, until British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, was moved to comment in 1851 that "the boundary line between Turkey and Persia can never be finally settled except by an arbitrary decision on the part of Great Britain and Russia". A protocol between the Young Turks and the Persians was signed in Constantinople in 1913, but World War I cancelled all plans.

The British advisors in Iraq were able to keep the waterway bi-national under the thalweg principle that has worked in Europe (see Danube River): the dividing line was the middle of the waterway. All United Nations attempts to intervene as mediators were rebuffed. Under Saddam Hussein, Baathist Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer navigable channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory. But in 1975, Iraq signed the Algiers Accord in which it recognized the line running down the middle of the waterway, as the official border. However, in 1980, Saddam abrogated the treaty he signed, and Iraq invaded Iran. The main thrust of the military movement on the ground was across the Shatt al-Arab. The waterway was the stage for most of the military battles between the two armies. The Shatt al-Arab waterway was Iraq's only outlet to the Persian Gulf, and thus, its shipping lanes were greatly affected by continuous Iranian attacks. When the al-Faw peninsula was captured by the Iranians in 1987, Iraq's shipping activities virtually came to a halt and had to be diverted to other Arab ports, such as Kuwait and even Aqaba, Jordan. Later, and as the Persian Gulf War was looming, Saddam again recognized the Algiers Accord in order to appease Iranians before he could undertake an invasion of Kuwait.

In short, you could say that the Iranians have simply been behaving, as regards this stretch of water, in the way that they've already been behaving...since 1639?

[Arawn]

1. Iran vowing to destroy Israel is a lie. The quote that is commonly used to justify this was mistranslated.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitc...-hitchens.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C22%5Cstory_22-2-2006_pg4_15

2. Ahmadinejad's speeches are all bluster. I will repeat this until people get it: the President of Iran is a figurehead with very little actual power. He is the face of the Iranian government, but the real power is with the Mullahs.

The President before him, Khatami, tried to get democratic reform in Iran and failed. Yet supposedly his successor in the same position is supposed to have the ability to singlehandedly start a war with a foreign hyperpower.

3. The Iranian government does not want a fight with the U.S. They are assholes, but they aren't suicidal, which is what provoking a war with America would be.

This isn't even worth replying too. The double standard you wish to set here is beyond stupid. He has not only threatened genocide but promised it. The last guy to do this was Hitler.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Iran has vowed to make this happen, and you want people to line up for the buses.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

(For an example please see Darfur and the UN's stubborn refusal to help. The people of Darfur have only been begging for help for a few years now)

[Tages]

This isn't even worth replying too.

Thank you for showing us all that you were above replying.

The double standard you wish to set here is beyond stupid.

What double standard? You said something that wasn't true and I called you on it.

He has not only threatened genocide but promised it.

Then I suppose you wouldn't mind backing this assertion up and showing us where he has promised genocide.

Or maybe you can show me how he would be capable of doing this even if he wanted to.

Or maybe you can explain why the ~25-35,000 Jews still living in Iran haven't been killed yet.

The last guy to do this was Hitler.

So no genocides have occurred between 1945 and now?

You learn the most interesting things on this board.

[Arawn]

Then I suppose you wouldn't mind backing this assertion up and showing us where he has promised genocide.



Lets see. Howabout a few of these statements...All quoted from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

srael and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said

the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives

Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources

Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East and said it would soon be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust took place.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

And here he is claiming the holocaust to be a myth.

"If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

And since that may not be enough heres a few more.

February 28, 2007

"The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan . . . Many Western governments that claim to be pioneers of democracy and standard bearers of human rights close their eyes over crimes committed by the Zionists and by remaining silent support the Zionists due to their hedonistic and materialistic tendencies."

December 12, 2006

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want…Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out"

November 29, 2006

"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"

(Letter from Ahmadinejad "to the American people")

June 16, 2006

"I think we have sufficiently talked about this matter and these Holocaust events need to be further investigated by independent and impartial parties."

"An event that has influenced so many diplomatic and political equations of the world needs to investigated and researched by impartial and independent groups."

"If it is true, then the response to this question should not be solved in Palestine. The Palestinian question should be settled as soon as possible. If it is false, why should such measures be taken against the people of Palestine?"

Sources include but are not limited to.

The BBC
The Washington Post
The Anti-Defimation League
Yahoo News
CNN

So is that enough or should I take another 5 minutes and quote his threats against America? Keep in mind if Bush said any of this we'd have 1/2 the world bombing the shit out of us before the speech ended.

So yea I do think it's beyond stupid for people to be able to claim he hasn't said this stuff. In US schools the public grade schools open with the Pledge of Alliegence, in Iran they sing a song about killing Jews and then say a prayer asking Allah to make them martyrs when they grow up. I wonder which country the world should really fear. (Source obsessionthemovie.com)

[Adam C]

So is that enough or should I take another 5 minutes and quote his threats against America? Keep in mind if Bush said any of this we'd have 1/2 the world bombing the shit out of us before the speech ended.

Really now? Is that why half the world is bombing America for their illegal and disasterous invasion of Iraq? Do you have any basis in this statement at all?

Moreover, you still haven't mustered a decent response to his point about the fact that the position of President of Iran is basically a puppet position and that real political power is wielded by the mullahs, or specifically Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei and the Guardian Council of Iran, which selects electoral candidates, acts as a constitutional court, and holds veto power over all legislation passed by the Majlis (Iranian Parliament). Moreover, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ideological brethen had poor showing in the 2006 local council elections and 2006 Assembly of Experts election, which saw his rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani take the lead. It's likely that he might get his Presidency cut short now.

And while it's pretty proven Ahmadinejad has shot his mouth off repeatedly about Israel and denied the Holocaust, your reasoning that he's planning genocide falls short. As Tages said there are 25-35,000 Jews living in Iran that have not been killed. Granted they are heavily discriminated against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Current_status_in_Iran) as one would expect living as a religious minority in a theocracy, but nothing suggests that the Iranian government is moving towards genocide as opposed to following the usual policy of discrimination and harassment.

...in Iran they sing a song about killing Jews and then say a prayer asking Allah to make them martyrs when they grow up. I wonder which country the world should really fear. (Source obsessionthemovie.com)

What is "Obsession the Movie" and is it a reliable source?

[Arawn]

Obsession is a documentary that was made by people that used to live in the middle east. It contains raw footage from rallies, demonstrations and even the evening news. It has been compared to home movies that Russians brought to America durring the cold war. Ones that showed the USSR's propoganda machine trying to frighten people into blind hatred of the western countries.

And I was asked where he had said it, so I posted it. And yes if Bush announced he intended the complete genocide of an entire race people would attack us.

Also Obsession has yet to be refuted by a single credible news media. Here's a link to some of the media outlets that have reviewed it.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/pr.htm

[Adam C]

And I was asked where he had said it, so I posted it. And yes if Bush announced he intended the complete genocide of an entire race people would attack us.


Except that you said...

So is that enough or should I take another 5 minutes and quote his threats against America? Keep in mind if Bush said any of this we'd have 1/2 the world bombing the shit out of us before the speech ended.

...in reference to a bunch of quotes were Ahaminejad merely talked about destroying the nation of Israel, but not genocide of the Jewish race. Moreover, your claims continue to ignore the emptiness of Ahaminejad's rhetoric.

[SOGG]

Lets see. Howabout a few of these statements...All quoted from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. <snipped for space>

Actually, Arawn, I'd like those quotes in Farsi. I go to school with a few Iranian born Americans and I'd like the opportunity to have it translated for me by someone I trust.

[Paul McEnery]

Obsession is a documentary that was made by people that used to live in the middle east. It contains raw footage from rallies, demonstrations and even the evening news. It has been compared to home movies that Russians brought to America durring the cold war. Ones that showed the USSR's propoganda machine trying to frighten people into blind hatred of the western countries.
Because you can't possibly find a propaganda machine in the USA trying to frighten people into blind hated of middle eastern countries.

Oh wait a second. I think I just spotted part of one.

[J. Robb]

As much as Bush appears to want a confrontation of Irans nuclear program. Iran wants a fight even more so.
I'd say neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad truly want a war, they just want the citizens of their respective nations to live in fear of an impending war.

Fear makes people more conservative- 9/11 shot Bush's approval ratings up and made a lot of Americans happy to give up some freedoms for more security. And it was Bush's labelling Iran as "evil" and invading two neighbours that made Iranians seemingly give up on reforms and vote in a hard-liner like Ahmadinejad.

That's not to say an actual war might not break out. Bush faces re-election next year, and Ahmadinejad in '09, so the tension has to keep being ratcheted up until then, and one side may go too far.

[Paul McEnery]

I'd say neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad truly want a war, they just want the citizens of their respective nations to live in fear of an impending war.

Fear makes people more conservative- 9/11 shot Bush's approval ratings up and made a lot of Americans happy to give up some freedoms for more security. And it was Bush's labelling Iran as "evil" and invading two neighbours that made Iranians seemingly give up on reforms and vote in a hard-liner like Ahmadinejad.

That's not to say an actual war might not break out. Bush faces re-election next year, and Ahmadinejad in '09, so the tension has to keep being ratcheted up until then, and one side may go too far.

It looks like this was Ahmadinejad's call. It's the Revolutionary Guards, not the Army, who bagged the Brits. Which means this is exactly what you're talking about -- a faltering petty thug bigging himself up.

[Shellhead]

I'd say neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad truly want a war, they just want the citizens of their respective nations to live in fear of an impending war.

Fear makes people more conservative- 9/11 shot Bush's approval ratings up and made a lot of Americans happy to give up some freedoms for more security. And it was Bush's labelling Iran as "evil" and invading two neighbours that made Iranians seemingly give up on reforms and vote in a hard-liner like Ahmadinejad.

That's not to say an actual war might not break out. Bush faces re-election next year, and Ahmadinejad in '09, so the tension has to keep being ratcheted up until then, and one side may go too far.

I agree that both leaders stand to benefit from scaring their respective citizens. But Bush can't run for President again, because he's already gotten his two terms. We passed a law to that effect a long time ago to prevent getting one of those president-for-life style dictatorships.

If the Bush crowd really wants to exploit the Iran situation for long-term advantage, Cheney should step down so that an annointed successor can become Veep and then run in '08 on the inside track. That might even have been plausible about a year ago, but now the Bush administration is too tainted by this bungled effort in Iraq. Bad news for brother Jeb, I guess. He will probably never get to be president now.

[berk]

...
So is that enough or should I take another 5 minutes and quote his threats against America? Keep in mind if Bush said any of this we'd have 1/2 the world bombing the shit out of us before the speech ended.
...

And I was asked where he had said it, so I posted it. And yes if Bush announced he intended the complete genocide of an entire race people would attack us....If this were a world where other countries attacked powerful aggressors in defense of their weaker victims, the rest of the world would have gotten together and attacked the US long ago, because there has been no shortage of occasions. For that matter they would have attacked Canada too, and a lot of other nations. But they don't and for one simple reason: power, that is the relative preponderance of military power enjoyed by the US, which renders it impractical to attempt to correct its behaviour by force. And as a vassal state, Canada enjoys some of this immunity as well. The exceptions, the terrorist attacks, come from scattered groups of desperate people who feel they have nothing to lose. Nation-states, no matter how poor or dominated by stronger states, always have something to lose, so you'll never have to worry about Iraq or NK or Iran or any other country attacking America, just on desperate suicide missions a la 911 from people or groups who feel, rightly or wrongly they have no hope left.

Any word yet on whether or no the Brits really were in Iran's territorial waters BTW?

[Nick Soapdish]

Lets see. Howabout a few of these statements...All quoted from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

...

Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.



Ahmadinejad speaks of himself in the third person?

(I can buy that. It's stereotypical of people that try to seem more important than they are and I'm somewhat susceptible to stereotypes.)

The rest of those quotes are saying that the Zionist state will be destroyed, not that Iran will do it (unless you misquoted them). So do you think that Falwell, Robertson, and his ilk are bent on destroying the world? They think it's at its end.

[Tages]

Ahmadinejad speaks of himself in the third person?

(I can buy that. It's stereotypical of people that try to seem more important than they are and I'm somewhat susceptible to stereotypes.)

The rest of those quotes are saying that the Zionist state will be destroyed, not that Iran will do it (unless you misquoted them). So do you think that Falwell, Robertson, and his ilk are bent on destroying the world? They think it's at its end.

Not even that it will be destroyed, but that it will eventually fall. One of the quotes even compares Israel to the Soviet Union, and I recall no genocide occurring when the USSR collapsed.

Each and every one of those quotes is either mistranslated or completely irrelevant.

[J. Robb]

I agree that both leaders stand to benefit from scaring their respective citizens. But Bush can't run for President again, because he's already gotten his two terms. We passed a law to that effect a long time ago to prevent getting one of those president-for-life style dictatorships.
Yeah, I misspoke when I said "Bush" will face re-election, I just meant the Republican Party.

[Arawn]

The rest of those quotes are saying that the Zionist state will be destroyed, not that Iran will do it (unless you misquoted them). So do you think that Falwell, Robertson, and his ilk are bent on destroying the world? They think it's at its end.

When Ahmadinejad refers to Zionists he is directly referring to the Isreali people. Please don't take 1 quote about destroying the nation and ignore threats to destroy the people.

[Arawn]

Not even that it will be destroyed, but that it will eventually fall. One of the quotes even compares Israel to the Soviet Union, and I recall no genocide occurring when the USSR collapsed.

Each and every one of those quotes is either mistranslated or completely irrelevant.

You're one of those nutters that thinks the US blew up the WTC aren't you...

[Paul McEnery]

You're one of those nutters that thinks the US blew up the WTC aren't you...

Ooh, the irony...

[Charles RB]

This was a very avoidable incident.

Yes, it was - the Iranians could easily not have done it, or having done it have let the fifteen servicemen go once they've shown what big penis's they've got.

This could in theory have been Polish sailors, or Georgian sailors, or any of the tiny band of servile idiots that are still cooperating with the "coalition" in Iraq.

And it'd still be the same situation of Iran capturing servicemen that were operating in Iraqi waters on routine manouvers and refusing to let ambassadors see them while saying they're going to charge them. We don't know how they're being treated. That's an extremely dodgy situation.

Besides, now that they have them, the Iranians obviously want to exchange them, which is standard practice.

Fine. We're sending ambassadors and statements to them and can meet/hear theirs. They want to make demands, they can go right ahead with ease and then we can all go home.

He has not only threatened genocide but promised it. The last guy to do this was Hitler.

No he wasn't. Genocides have occured since 1945.

Iran has vowed to make this happen

How would they make this happen? As of this moment, they don't have any means of decisively wiping out Israel without getting wiped out themselves.

[Serik]

How would they make this happen? As of this moment, they don't have any means of decisively wiping out Israel without getting wiped out themselves.

Nuclear weapons in possession

Israel: 60-80
Iran: 0

Speaks for itself.

[Drew Van T.]

Yes, it was - the Iranians could easily not have done it, or having done it have let the fifteen servicemen go once they've shown what big penis's they've got.

As suggested by the article I posted, the uncertainty as to where the border really lies, and the many past disputes centered around this very issue, means that the Iranians' case for swinging their penis around is at least as good as the case for Tony Blair swinging his penis around.

If they truly believed that the boat was in their waters, then they were entitled to a response (and again, by responding they were taking the bait, which was pretty damn stupid on their part, but somewhat understandable). Whether that response was out of proportion...well, you've got to look at the wider political context, don't you? And that political context is full of sabre-rattling in Iran's direction...

And it'd still be the same situation of Iran capturing servicemen that were operating in Iraqi waters on routine manouvers and refusing to let ambassadors see them while saying they're going to charge them.

What is "routine" about gradually filling the Gulf with aircraft carriers that are clearly getting ready to strike at Iran? Whether they like it or not, those British sailors are one small part of a much larger naval force that is seemingly being assembled with aggressive intent (because one can't imagine what other purpose there could be). It's a bit rich to play the innocent "we wuz just after smugglers" here, because like I said, there is a much bigger context. Speaking of which...

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley

WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

[Serik]

FYI: Webster G. Tarpley believes the Bush Administration orchested the 9/11 attacks. He's also been associated with the LaRouche Movement.

Just think it's important to identify people's potential biases.

[Charles RB]

Whether that response was out of proportion...well, you've got to look at the wider political context, don't you? And that political context is full of sabre-rattling in Iran's direction...

Which makes it a really stupid decision to capture the sailors in an area you know the Iraqis believes is theirs and which the Royal Navy is treating as Iraqi - that's hardly going to lessen the sabre-rattling. There are few things more likely to give Blair & Bush the excuse to rattle sabres than Iran nabbing British servicemen. You've got an article quoted (where's it from, by the way?) that says America plans to launch a sneak attack; now they've got a reason to do it that sounds good to the cameras, which is surely the opposite of what Iran wants (as tactical nukes suck).

What is "routine" about gradually filling the Gulf with aircraft carriers that are clearly getting ready to strike at Iran?

The sailors captured were captured during an investigation of a merchant vessel, which is a routine manouver.

Whether they like it or not, those British sailors are one small part of a much larger naval force that is seemingly being assembled with aggressive intent

They're not being charged with that though - they're being charged with espionage. (Coz I sure know that if I wanted to carry out espionage, I'd use men in distinct uniforms and a massive ship the other guy could see a mile off!)

How exactly is capturing sailors going to stop that naval force being built up anyway?

[Paul McEnery]

Which makes it a really stupid decision to capture the sailors in an area you know the Iraqis believes is theirs and which the Royal Navy is treating as Iraqi - that's hardly going to lessen the sabre-rattling. There are few things more likely to give Blair & Bush the excuse to rattle sabres than Iran nabbing British servicemen. You've got an article quoted (where's it from, by the way?) that says America plans to launch a sneak attack; now they've got a reason to do it that sounds good to the cameras, which is surely the opposite of what Iran wants (as tactical nukes suck).



The sailors captured were captured during an investigation of a merchant vessel, which is a routine manouver.



They're not being charged with that though - they're being charged with espionage. (Coz I sure know that if I wanted to carry out espionage, I'd use men in distinct uniforms and a massive ship the other guy could see a mile off!)

How exactly is capturing sailors going to stop that naval force being built up anyway?

Like I say, Ahmadinijad is busting a move. His point isn't to better Iran's position, but rather to better his own position within Iran. So if Iran's nuclear facilities get bombed by Whitey, he can go on the stump with self-righteous rhetoric and bump up is popularity.

[Hoss]

I'm changing my theory - I think neutered Bush is just treading water and can't pull the trigger on anything right now. The attorney thing is getting uglier and uglier and isn't going to go away anytime soon. Too many new doors are being opened every day. People are pleading the 5th now. People who plead don't want to go to jail. People who don't want to go to jail make deals to talk.

[Serik]

What is "routine" about gradually filling the Gulf with aircraft carriers that are clearly getting ready to strike at Iran?

As far as US policy is concerned, carrier deployment is a routine way of making a point through force projection.

In March 1996, after the Chinese fired missiles toward Taiwan and started numerous military exercises, the US Navy deployed two carrier battlegroups to the area. China scrapped further missiles tests and exercises. Indeed, President Bill Clinton is quoted as saying, "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: where is the nearest carrier?"

The carriers in the Gulf are undoubtedly a show of force. But it's not really some extraordinary, unheard of gesture...

[Hoss]

The carriers in the Gulf are undoubtedly a show of force. But it's not really some extraordinary, unheard of gesture...

Except when there is a crazy cowboy in the White House.

[Serik]

Except when there is a crazy cowboy in the White House.

And a spineless Congress that won't pass legislation requiring the president to consult Congress prior to any military action against Iran.

[Arawn]

No he wasn't. Genocides have occured since 1945.


Ahmadinejad is in fact the first leader of a nation to not only announce plans for genocide but to make it a national policy. He has stirred up the entire country by focussing them on their hatred of the Jews. He has literally promised them that their troubles will be over once they have eliminated Isreal and the "Zionists" living there.

So yes he is the first since Hitler to so publicly announce plans like this. The world ignored it then, and it's trying to ignore it now.

[Tages]

Ahmadinejad is in fact the first leader of a nation to not only announce plans for genocide but to make it a national policy. He has stirred up the entire country by focussing them on their hatred of the Jews.

And again, you keep ignoring this vital question:

Why are there 35,000 Jews still living in Iran if the President of Iran (who, once again, is not the "leader of Iran;" Khomeini is) is so bent on murdering them all?

[Nick Soapdish]

When Ahmadinejad refers to Zionists he is directly referring to the Isreali people. Please don't take 1 quote about destroying the nation and ignore threats to destroy the people.

The reason that I chose one quote is because that quote said that Ahmadinejad said "Ahmadinejad promised several times in the last few months to destroy Israel" or something like that. Not because it singled out the government instead of the people. I was attempting to imply that perhaps it wasn't a direct quote of Ahmadenijad, contrary to your claims.

Your quotes all referred to the fall of the Zionist regime, rather than the destruction of the Zionist (Israeli) people. I'm not saying that he has goodwill towards the Jewish, but wanting them out of power isn't the same as wanting them genocided.

[fly on the wall]

The reason that I chose one quote is because that quote said that Ahmadinejad said "Ahmadinejad promised several times in the last few months to destroy Israel" or something like that. Not because it singled out the government instead of the people. I was attempting to imply that perhaps it wasn't a direct quote of Ahmadenijad, contrary to your claims.

Your quotes all referred to the fall of the Zionist regime, rather than the destruction of the Zionist (Israeli) people. I'm not saying that he has goodwill towards the Jewish, but wanting them out of power isn't the same as wanting them genocided.

You mean he wants regime change like we wanted in Iraq.

[fly on the wall]

The worst case scenario from Bush that I can imagine is that he does attack Iran, and then tries to use that as justification for not stepping down if a Democrat wins the election in 2008. After all the anti-Constitutional crap that Dubya has pulled so far, I can just picture him saying that he needs to stay President until the war has been won by us. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but I now consider it within the realm of possibility.

Now we're getting just plain silly. We might as well debate whether Bush will aquire X-ray vision and Super-breath.

[fly on the wall]

I disagree.

If someone told me some of the things he would do in his presidency prior to it, I would of laughed.

Now, it's not so funny.

Okay, I bet a jillion dollars that Bush won't try to hold on to his presidency after his second term.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[fly on the wall]

Not going to happen. Iran has three times the size and three times the population of Iraq. Going to war would set off Shia agitations and attacks all across the ME, especially in Lebanon, Qatar (where CENTCOM is based), Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Oil prices would go through the roof, the Iranian moderate movement would be wiped out and India would be extremely pissed off given that it's banking on a pipeline through Iran to service it's energy needs.

The US will hope bad results for conservatives in upcoming Iranian elections will continue to undercut them. Other than that, it's far too big a nut to crack.

Agreed. Bush already has two wars to fight that are unwinnable, even he isn't dumb enough to start a third. He hates being unpopular and he knows he's unpopular because he got us stuck in two quagmire wars.

And lets remember Iran is all mountains while Iraq was mostly flat areas. Part of the reason, a big part of the reason he went into Iraq was because he thought he could do it quick and easy like his dad did. He did do the first part of knocking out the old regime but of course he didn't count on the insurgents and the strength of Al Quaeda.

I doubt if Bush would go for a third quagmire war, but if he appears to be planning that we have to what we can to stop him. Congress has to shut off the war money and impeach the boob.

[fly on the wall]

So, his answer to the "legacy" question is apparently to be the man who started WWIII.

No, not WWIII, just War no. 3.

[fly on the wall]

Given the favour the US has done by toppling the Iraqi government, the Bush administration is practically an ally of Iran's. They're certainly the best thing that's ever happened to President Ahmadinejad- without the US's sudden aggression, Iran would probably still be on the road to reform and westernization and would have never elected a hardliner like him.

The truth hurts, don't it.

I bet even Bush wishes we had never gone into Iraq.

[BlairH]

What is "routine" about gradually filling the Gulf with aircraft carriers that are clearly getting ready to strike at Iran?

The Persian Gulf, being one of the most important strategic locations in the world, is always home to at least 1 (usually more) carrier group. Factor in the fact that coalition troops in Iraq still need air support and it doesn't look very unusual at all.

Drew, April 6 will come and go. Your man in your source is a crazy kook who thinks the Government was behind 9/11, so I'm going to take his word with a pinch of salt. If the US attacks Iran on April 6, I will eat my hat and post pics.

[Nick Soapdish]

You mean he wants regime change like we wanted in Iraq.

Pretty much.

I figure he's not specifically wanting the carnage that we wound up with, but as long as they're mostly Jewish, he wouldn't mind.

[Shellhead]

The truth hurts, don't it.

I bet even Bush wishes we had never gone into Iraq.

Could be. Every night on Letterman, there is a clip of Bush saying something dumb or at least stammering like a fool. Last week, there was a clip where Bush accidentally said that we should get out of Iraq, then immediately corrected himself and said we should NOT get out of Iraq.

[fly on the wall]

Could be. Every night on Letterman, there is a clip of Bush saying something dumb or at least stammering like a fool. Last week, there was a clip where Bush accidentally said that we should get out of Iraq, then immediately corrected himself and said we should NOT get out of Iraq.

Sigmund Freud would say that was proof that Bush himself realizes what a mistake it was and how we are throwing good money after bad to stay there.

But the desire to save face keeps Bush from acting on his true feelings so it's Vietnam all over again. Someday we'll get out of there and the place will fall apart the same as if we waited ten minutes to get out or ten more years.

[Armless Penguin]

And a spineless Congress that won't pass legislation requiring the president to consult Congress prior to any military action against Iran.

Don't be silly. It's called Separation of Powers, and it's a Constitutional principle. Bush, like it or not, is the Commander-in-Chief--he can send troops wherever he likes, so long as Congress approves within 60 days (War Powers Act). But trust me, if even a single US soldier is over there, they'll approve--it'd be political suicide not to, which is exactly why they can't cut funding for the Iraq War. It's quite understandable, to be honest. Who wants their child overseas, in a war zone, with a country who refuses to buy him armor or weapons?

[Adam C]

Don't be silly. It's called Separation of Powers, and it's a Constitutional principle. Bush, like it or not, is the Commander-in-Chief--he can send troops wherever he likes, so long as Congress approves within 60 days (War Powers Act).

And that's just it, they did give approval to the Iraq War, only in the form of a rather vaguely worded resolution that did not explicitly declare war on Iraq. In doing so they abdicated full responsibility for giving him approval for war by giving him an opening to exploit.

[Drew Van T.]

Which makes it a really stupid decision to capture the sailors in an area you know the Iraqis believes is theirs and which the Royal Navy is treating as Iraqi - that's hardly going to lessen the sabre-rattling. There are few things more likely to give Blair & Bush the excuse to rattle sabres than Iran nabbing British servicemen.

Like I said, when the Iranians responded, they were stupidly taking the bait. But nobody just rolls over and plays dead in the face of sabre-rattling by a bigger opponent, Charles. It might be the smartest, most rational thing to do, without a doubt, but nobody does it in this kind of situation. Instead they feel that it's more important to ratchet up the nationalist sentiment of their own people.

If you'll remember, Saddam made similar noises, and behaved quite similarly, in 2003 prior to the invasion.

They're not being charged with that though - they're being charged with espionage. (Coz I sure know that if I wanted to carry out espionage, I'd use men in distinct uniforms and a massive ship the other guy could see a mile off!)

What they're calling it officially - the official charges - is not the point. It hardly ever is. The point is that they captured a boat. This is one of their "moves" on the chess board that is the Middle East, just like accusing Iran of supporting the Iraqi resistance with explosive devices was one of America's "moves". The Iranians felt that they needed to make a move, and circumstances have dictated that this be it.

I'm very sorry that British sailors are being used as pawns in this kind of game, but this is precisely what you as a country signed up for when you joined the coalition.

Drew, April 6 will come and go. Your man in your source is a crazy kook who thinks the Government was behind 9/11, so I'm going to take his word with a pinch of salt. If the US attacks Iran on April 6, I will eat my hat and post pics.

Oh, it was almost certainly wrong about the date, and some of the other claims are indeed far-fetched. I agreed with the basic thrust - namely that there will be an attack on Iran relatively soon, and that it will probably be entirely from the air.

Keep your hat relatively closeby.

[Drew Van T.]

The carriers in the Gulf are undoubtedly a show of force. But it's not really some extraordinary, unheard of gesture...

I remember when in 2003, for a long time more than a few people were arguing that the troops and armament being gradually assembled in the Gulf was just a "massive show of force to scare Saddam into complying with the UN inspectors". Subterfuge, nothing more. They were reasoning that Bush did not regard invading Iraq as a serious option.

[Paul McEnery]

Don't be silly. It's called Separation of Powers, and it's a Constitutional principle. Bush, like it or not, is the Commander-in-Chief--he can send troops wherever he likes, so long as Congress approves within 60 days (War Powers Act). But trust me, if even a single US soldier is over there, they'll approve--it'd be political suicide not to, which is exactly why they can't cut funding for the Iraq War. It's quite understandable, to be honest. Who wants their child overseas, in a war zone, with a country who refuses to buy him armor or weapons?

Is this right? If that were the case, he wouldn't have had to get Congress to give him the power to unilaterally declare war on Iraq, would he?

Either way, there's no way the Democrats will approve a war. That, given the current mood of the people, would be political suicide. Have you not noticed the way Edwards has publicly said he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war?