Now Iran?!?!

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The future appears quite murky...

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, if the US cannot win in Iraq, what chance has the US got against Iran, really? How many states/countries will again support US intervention, given the Iraq experience?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have wondered about the same things.

We might suppose the USA and Israel could bomb out most of Iran's air defenses and nuclear sites without invading, though. Still, it would be extremely messy, and who knows what bigger messes it might lead to. Some local countries might not allow military base access for those purposes, too.

[boracay]

have some questions about those who would support attacking iran:

1. how many US victims would still be acceptable for you? 10.000? 30.000? more?
2. how many iranian victims would still be acceptable for you? 1 million? it doesn't matter?
3. what would be acceptable expenses of another war? 5 trillion US$? 10? (by some prognosis war in iraq will cost 1-2 trillion US$)
4. would it be reasonable to expect a heavy damage in US influence/interests around the globe?
5. would it be reasonable to expect a very negative consequences in the whole middle east including in already unstable Pakistan and nowadays US friendly countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. not to mention Iraq / Afghanistan.
6. who would pay those enormous expenses of war?

i'm not advocating iran should have nukes. it should be stopped, but not for the price of another war.

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[NewTeaBag]

"murder was the case that they gave me."
Snoop Doggy Dog

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
have some questions about those who would support attacking iran:

1. how many US victims would still be acceptable for you? 10.000? 30.000? more?
2. how many iranian victims would still be acceptable for you? 1 million? it doesn't matter?
3. what would be acceptable expenses of another war? 5 trillion US$? 10? (by some prognosis war in iraq will cost 1-2 trillion US$)
4. would it be reasonable to expect a heavy damage in US influence/interests around the globe?
5. would it be reasonable to expect a very negative consequences in the whole middle east including in already unstable Pakistan and nowadays US friendly countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. not to mention Iraq / Afghanistan.
6. who would pay those enormous expenses of war?

i'm not advocating iran should have nukes. it should be stopped, but not for the price of another war.

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you asking me these questions?

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
have some questions about those who would support attacking iran:

1. how many US victims would still be acceptable for you? 10.000? 30.000? more?
2. how many iranian victims would still be acceptable for you? 1 million? it doesn't matter?
3. what would be acceptable expenses of another war? 5 trillion US$? 10? (by some prognosis war in iraq will cost 1-2 trillion US$)
4. would it be reasonable to expect a heavy damage in US influence/interests around the globe?
5. would it be reasonable to expect a very negative consequences in the whole middle east including in already unstable Pakistan and nowadays US friendly countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. not to mention Iraq / Afghanistan.
6. who would pay those enormous expenses of war?

i'm not advocating iran should have nukes. it should be stopped, but not for the price of another war.

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you asking me these questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

not you, i meant anyone who's supporting another unnecessary war. because when reading them (again, not your posts - those have some ground and i agree with most of your thoughts) i often get an impression posters are viewing the war like a computer game, where counts only the military victory regardless of the number of death, expenses, who's paying them, international consequences, etc. surely noone can really compete with brutal power of the US, but the question is how much another war is really needed / who would benefit from it / who would be paying for it either with money or life / how much did average american benefit from iraq adventure / was it good or was it bad decision / do i support double standards, etc?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that India, North Korea and Pakistan are irrelevant to the powers that be. The question is about oil, and its kind of sad, but that's how it is.

If America was smart enough to get off foreign oils, then we would treat nuclear Iran the same way we treated all the others. Raise a diplomatic stink, give them the cold shoulder for a few years and then make nice.

Go ethanol, go wind, go solar, save the world you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats sad is that you don't mention the one technology that really could save the world from "oil wars", and its so obvious even the French know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean nuclear power, do you?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that India, North Korea and Pakistan are irrelevant to the powers that be. The question is about oil, and its kind of sad, but that's how it is.

If America was smart enough to get off foreign oils, then we would treat nuclear Iran the same way we treated all the others. Raise a diplomatic stink, give them the cold shoulder for a few years and then make nice.

Go ethanol, go wind, go solar, save the world you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats sad is that you don't mention the one technology that really could save the world from "oil wars", and its so obvious even the French know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean nuclear power, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please! Heavens no! Let's not bring a rational, useful, clean (in a non destroying the whole world kind of way) source of energy into the discussion.

Nuclear = Bad has become a religion. Daring to suggest otherwise is apostasy.
Especially when ethanol (despites it's huge production energy balance deficit)will solve ALL the worlds needs along with Gore's "unplug your phone charger" plan.

[morphball]

I was going to post this in the false flag thread, but this one seems more appropriate.

The Next War Draws Nearer

Now, I will just put it out there, this guy is as vague as vague can be with his sources, but if the chatter he is hearing is valid, well then I suppose we had better fasten our seat belts. Some interesting quotes...

[ QUOTE ]
In the last two weeks the Department of Defense has begun pushing regular contractors very aggressively for “unit costs” to be used for logistical preparations for reconstruction and ground operations in a certain country of West Asia.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Former senior CIA analyst Bob Baer has a piece in the current Time Magazine called “Prelude to an Attack on Iran.” Baer also sees a quickening pace and an increasing likelihood of a sustained military assault on Iran, driven by the Neocons ... He quotes an Administration official who says these explosive devices “are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”


[/ QUOTE ]

The Harper article/blog links to the Time article which is an interesting read in itself. Some things that I picked up out of the fluff, which are also alarming if true:

[ QUOTE ]
A former CIA explosives expert who still works in Iraq told me: "The Iranians are making them. End of story." His argument is only a state is capable of manufacturing the EFP's, which involves a complicated annealing process. Incidentally, he also is convinced the IRGC is helping Iraqi Shi'a militias sight in their mortars on the Green Zone. "The way they're dropping them in, in neat grids, tells me all I need to know that the Shi'a are getting help. And there's no doubt it's Iranian, the IRGC's," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the frantic race by the Iranians to acquire and build up arms, see Iran vows to use 'smart' bomb on enemies :

[ QUOTE ]
Iran vowed Sunday to use a new 2,000-pound "smart" bomb against its enemies and unveiled mass production of the new weapon, state television reported.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we may be seeing that the Administration and/or the military is beginning to see the issue as one of "now or never."

[ChoicestHops]

U.S. and Israel will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Iran will die trying and is getting close. One of our countries may pre-emptively hit them with nuclear bunker bombs. Realistically, there is no way we can win a ground or air war against them efficiently. I give it less than three years.

Jan '07 - BBC Israel planning nuclear attack against Iran

Fox - Media is pushing Iran war

2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

It's about to get pretty bad.

[ChoicestHops]

Also, it's not just about oil and neither was Iraq. But that is some part of it. The west cannot allow Iran to become nuclear because it's absurd to think they will not make weapons! Israel is making nuclear weapons as we speak. Iran has western troops to their left and right in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is frantic right now because they know what is coming. But we can't allow them to get a nuke and give it to Hezbollah. It's a [censored] up situation.