The major wiggle room will be getting him and his party out of office next time around. I expect they'll save the next war for the next term. How much longer do we have to wait?

 

The major wiggle room will be getting him and his party out of office next time around. I expect they'll save the next war for the next term. How much longer do we have to wait?

I wouldn't count on that happening. Nor would I count on a Democrat, if one could get elected down there, which I'll believe when I see it (corrupt electoral system), necessarily doing the right thing either. Especially if he's already been forced into a spot between a rock and a hard place.

Not only that but this war could be coming much sooner than we think. According to Hersh, covert ops have been ongoing and plans and scenarios have been drawn up. Months, weeks?

 

Oh, joy. And with Harper at the helm. If he tries to take us goose-stepping on this one, I may have to start the revolution ahead of schedule.

I doubt that the US will actually use nukes, but bombing another country back to the stone age is not difficult to believe. It will more or less complete the destruction of their economy, too. Which, I'm told, is a bad thing, although I can't see how it wouldn't be good for the world as a whole for the balance of economic power to shift. Going to be truly bad to be a poor American citizen, though. Or even a middle class one. Miss G, time to start working on your application for Canadian landed status...

 

The Bush government has wanted this fight for a while. If he uses the same strategy as last time (mulish swaggering), things will be very bad for everyone. If the French and German governments resume their past transparent childishness, things will be even worse. The world doesn't seem to have the right leaders for the times.

 

Oh, joy. And with Harper at the helm. If he tries to take us goose-stepping on this one, I may have to start the revolution ahead of schedule.

Oh Harpo would be up for it all right. He'll get to wear his ugly vest in public more too.

I doubt that the US will actually use nukes, but bombing another country back to the stone age is not difficult to believe.

That's what I thought before I read the article too. I've heard in recent days that it was reported that much of the military is very much against the idea. But much of the military was very much against the Iraq invasion too and look how that turned out.

The articles quotes "reasonable-sounding" people saying that the "bunker busters" are the only option if they want to get at the reported underground manufacturing sites. They even seem to be saying that they have a way to engineer them with more blast, less radiation, obviously in an attempt to make people feel better about their use.

Really, with the US having problems with conventional force numbers, and their proven ineffectiveness in Iraq, using nukes must seem like an appealing way for the Bush junta to project overwhelming US power around the world.

 

Facinating that this all comes up just as I am reaching the climax of a theological tract discussing the immorally of nuclear weapons. Written in cold war times, I was really only reading it for the more general discussion about the imperative of peace. Who knew that the nuclear weapon discussions were also (possibly) relevant?

 

Unfortunately it seems like US belligerence in the region has pretty much guaranteed that there will be some kind of showdown.

Have you seen some of the stuff Iran has said? They are obviously developing a nuclear program and have intentions to refine Uranium to create a nuclear bomb. This is a threat to the stability of the region.

Iran has the choice here. They can choose to drop their weapons programs or have Israel, the US and/or the west do it for them.

Unfortunately, the failure of the US in Iraq is going to cloud our opinion of what is happening in Iran.

 

We also have a choice. We can do the very hard work of negotiating and trying to address the root causes of the strife, or we can take the easy way out and blow sh*t up. Don't give me that "they started it" childishness. This is not a playground.

 

Have you seen some of the stuff Iran has said? They are obviously developing a nuclear program and have intentions to refine Uranium to create a nuclear bomb. This is a threat to the stability of the region.

Iran has the choice here. They can choose to drop their weapons programs or have Israel, the US and/or the west do it for them.

Unfortunately, the failure of the US in Iraq is going to cloud our opinion of what is happening in Iran.

having the U.S. tell another country to NOT use nukes is like listening to advice from a rapist about dating

they are (at least for now) the only country on the planet to have used nuclear (or "nuculear") weapons against another country

 

Have you seen some of the stuff Iran has said? They are obviously developing a nuclear program and have intentions to refine Uranium to create a nuclear bomb. This is a threat to the stability of the region.

Iran has the choice here. They can choose to drop their weapons programs or have Israel, the US and/or the west do it for them.

Unfortunately, the failure of the US in Iraq is going to cloud our opinion of what is happening in Iran.

As I said in my first post, the extremists are controlling the agenda. Since long before 9-11 the neocons and the jihadists helped each other's cause, while the rest of the world is caught in the middle. In the West we can't do anything about the jihadists, other than attempt to hold back the hardliners on our side that provide fuel for the jihadists continued political survival.

Those who want to build nuclear weapons in Iran can point to well-founded fears that they need it to counter American aggression. Of course the more extreme in those countries will also move that nuclear technology to Al Queda style operatives, which will be used to goad the neocons and so on ... and so on.

If we want to point fingers to who did what first, we can point to the western powers, such as the US, Britain and France, who brutally subverted the aspirations of the citizens of the Middle East, through propping up despots who would guarantee our access to oil and deposing nascent democracies. For over a century they have sponsored coups and divided and subdivided regions and countries to serve their own purposes. Iraq was a prime case, living through various installed brutal rulers, leading to Americans favourite operative for a couple of decades, Saddam Hussein. The bitter irony of the Americans now saying they intend to install democracy by force is not lost on the people who live there. They aren't idiots or fools.

We in the west bear the bulk of the blame for the ugly history that has transpired there, therefore I think it is we who should be attempting to make it right.

 

We in the west bear the bulk of the blame for the ugly history that has transpired there, therefore I think it is we who should be attempting to make it right.

i doubt that nuking them would help very much except incite more and escalated violence

 

It seems like people seem to equate Iran and Iraq, or at least aren't aware of just how big and how difficult it would be to attack Iran, or that Iran's military would be as easily defeated as Iraq's was. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But, just for fun, let's compare the Iraq of 2001 (pre invasion) with Iran of 2006; (ie also pre invasion)

Population:
Iraq: Just under 27 million: Iran: Just under 69 million.
Area:
Iraq: 430,000 km2; Iran: 1,648,000 km2
Comparative Area: Iraq: about the size of the Yukon; Iran: Bigger than Northwest Territories
Coastline:
Iraq: 58 km; Iran: 2,440 km on the Gulf; 740 km on the Caspian Sea
Terrain:
Iraq: Mostly broad plains; mountainous near Iranian and Turkish borders; Iran: Rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts & mountains, small plain along both coasts
Elevation Extremes:
Iraq Low/High: 0m/3,611m; Iran Low/High -28m/5,671m

Literacy (Male/Female)
Iraq; 55.9%/24.4% Iran: 85.6%/73%

Suffrage:
Iraq: 18, universal; Iran 15, universal

GDP: (Purchasing Power Parity)
Iraq: $US 94.1 Billion; Iran: US$ 552.8 billion

GDP Per Capita PPP
Iraq:$US 3,400; Iran $US 8,100

Labour Force:
Iraq: 7.4 million; Iran: 23.68 million

Merchant Marine:
Iraq: 13 ships, 67,796 GRT/101,317 DWT; Iran: 143 ships 5,129,056 GRT/ 8,9,8,336 DWT

Manpower Available For Military Service (all males 18-49):
Iraq: 5,870,640; Iran: 18,319,545

Manpower Fit For Military Service (males 18-49)
Iraq: 4,930,074; Iran: 15,665,725

Replacement rate (Males reaching 18 years of age annually)
Iraq: 298,518; Iran: 862,056

Source: CIA World Factbook

As for the military, there is no comparison. Virtually every Iraqi military weapon and vehicle was Russian or Chinese made. Iran's military hardware comes from the Who's Who of Arms Dealers; Aside from extensive US, British, Russian and Chinese equipment, Iran has bought military hardware from Germany, Israel, Brazil, Italy, North Korea, Slovenia, Ukraine, Libya, Taiwan, and South Africa.

More importantly, Iran has embarked on an ambitious military manufacturing program for almost 30 years. Beginning in the 1960's Iran manufactured guns, mortars, and ammunition. In the 1980's that was expanded to aircraft parts including helicopter parts (the primary air weapon is the US made Cobra Attack Helicopter; Iran has 45 Sea Cobra "J" variants; it's the twin-engine version developed for the US Marine Corps; the USMC have 69 of them) and more recently, manufacture of complete weapons systems.

Iran currently designs and manufactures tanks; a chemical, biological and reactive armor upgrade for it's existing US, British and Russian made tanks said to be superior to the T-80 model in current production for Russian front line deployment; fighter aircraft; turboprop trainer aircraft; helicopters; missiles; rockets; Armored Personnel Carriers; Trucks; Launchers; and 90% of the replacement parts for all the vehicles and aircraft in it's military inventory.

Iran's forces are much, much better equipped than Iraq's was even before the first Gulf War. Iran has a navy, with 3 new Kilo Class Diesel-Electric submarines (the latest Russian design; said to be the quietest submarine in the world today and in front line deployment with the Russian Navy; China just recently agreed to buy 8 of them for delivery over the next 5 years); thousands of naval mines, 2 mine layers, 5 mine sweepers, thousands of AntiShip missiles, North Korean spy submarines, many small, very fast Rocket and Missile Attach ships; and underwater launched missiles.

Iran currently has 325,000 military personnel with 240,000 active front line troops. They deploy 2400 tanks, 4500 artillery, 1800 missile systems, 12500 battlefield infantry weapons, and 950 attack aircraft.

An indication of Iran's military abilities can be seen from the April, 2001 attack on Iranian Opposition forces who were at the time in Iraq as the guest of Saddam Hussein. In 3 hours fourteen minutes, Iran launched at least 56 and up to 77 SCUD-B medium range missiles at bases of the Mojahedin-e Khalq in Iraq; the attack has been described as very well coordinated and the number of missiles launched in what has been described as "a very short time" caused everyone who pays attention to such things to sit up and take notice. Sat images reveal 17 launchers were active; indicating the Iranians were easily able to demonstrate they can repeatedly reload and fire a 11.25 m 5900 Kg missile in less than one hour, which, according to Jane's Defense Weekly, is as fast as the best Russian troops can do it.

The following are confirmed locations and strikes: Camp Anzali, 120km NE of Bahgdad; 24 missiles; Camp Alavi (same area) 5 missiles; Camp Ashraf 110 km NE of Bahgdad 13 missiles; Camp Faiz 172 km S of Baghdad 7 missiles; Camp Homayun 365 km S of Baghdad 1 missile; Camp Habib 45 km N of Basra, 27 missiles.

The following day Iraq shot down a UAV on reconnaissance over the target areas (UAVs are unmanned aircraft; note that this advanced Iranian manufactured drone airplane was operational more than 5 years ago, and according to reports, Iran has designed and manufactured many such aircraft and they are commonly found to be patrolling Iraq and elsewhere in the Gulf).

Baghdad is 550 km of plains and desert from the Gulf; Tehran is 1600 km of mountains and deserts from the Gulf. The UN rates Iran number 1 in the world for earthquake frequency, earthquake intensity, and deaths from earthquakes. Tehran sits on more than 100 fault lines.

Dr Bahran Akaseh, a geophysicist at Tehran University, calculated there is a 90% chance Tehran will be hit by a Richter 6 or better earthquake and a 50% of a Richter 7.5 or greater within 100 years.

 

Interesting info Gordguide.

I would actually argue much of that works in our favour. It just gives us all the more targets to blow up. Seriously. Look what happened in Gulf War I. Total destruction of Iraq's military within 30 days. Occupying Iran would be more difficult than Iraq or Afghanistan, but I don't think anybody would want to do that anyways. If the US wanted to hit targets in Iran, it isn't going to be a problem.

The biggest threat from Iran is further destabilization of Iraq.

 

Well VD you're makeup application as neocon is consistent A bit heavy on the pancake this time. That royal WE creeping in again.

•••••

It would the height of idiocy for the US to be directly involved in any attack on Iran for some of the reasons Gord has outlined.
Also for logistic weakness and lack of support in the US and also for strategic reasons given that for once the Security Council has been unanimous and that's a fragile detente.

It's a threat to Israel.
Israel IS equipped and WILL, in my mind deal with it. If there is covert activity by the US it's in keeping with their arrangements with Israel not as a prelude to an Iraq style war.

There was a March 30th deadline, that has passed, I would suggest that it is only that the Israeli government is fragile that action has not been taken already by Israel.

With only 30 some per cent supporting his presidency Bush would be an idiot to undertake this and WOULD be impeached in a heartbeat.......

This is classic sabre rattling by the US but the strike if it comes will be from Israel..that's my call.

Iran has a powerful weapon against the US - oil and a Euro based oil market.

Iran has effectively declared war on Israel.......Israel WILL respond and can do so in an horrendously powerful manner........it is capable of mounting 3,000 sorties a day.

 

It seems like people seem to equate Iran and Iraq, or at least aren't aware of just how big and how difficult it would be to attack Iran, or that Iran's military would be as easily defeated as Iraq's was. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think that's true Gord. Even before I read the stats you posted I knew that generally Iran would be many orders of magnitude more difficult than Iraq. But there are people in Washington who make decisions that don't seem to recognize this or want to remain wilfully ignorant of the facts, just as they did during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Rumsfeld actually expected the US troops to be welcomed with flowers and parades. Are the people pulling the strings really that stupid? Sadly, in many cases, yes. But of those who recognize how difficult Iran would be as a target, this knowledge could be what makes the nuke option even more attractive.

(edit: I pulled this quote out of the Hersh article. What are they smoking he asks? Obviously they got some of Rumsfeld's stash)

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

One interesting stat was the literacy levels. Before their last election I kept hearing how there was a strong moderate and educated faction within the country who wanted to see Iran move away from fundamentalism. There is good reason to believe that US aggression in Iraq caused the balance to be tipped in favour of the extremist candidate. Of course, the extremists in Washington can use the existence of extremists in Iran to bolster their arguments, while the jihadists there can use the extremists ruling Washington to make their case. It works really well for both minority camps, just not for everybody else.

This is classic sabre rattling by the US but the strike if it comes will be from Israel..that's my call.

I think this is also a possibility, Israel has done it before. It would probably be greenlighted by the White House. Hersh didn't seem to focus on that potential much in his article.

I would actually argue much of that works in <span style="background:yellow"> our favour. </span> It just gives <span style="background:yellow"> us </span> all the more targets to blow up.

Dave, please don't include <span style="background:yellow"> me </span> in that. An attack on Iran would be in nobody's favour.

 

Dave, please don't include <span style="background:yellow"> me </span> in that. An attack on Iran would be in nobody's favour.

Ditto.


Oh, and GA, do you have anything to do with blastfishing? 'cause their store link doesn't work, so I can't see what they have...

Well, unless the site itself is the total contents of the spoof.

 

This is classic sabre rattling by the US but the strike if it comes will be from Israel..that's my call.

I think this is also a possibility, Israel has done it before. It would probably be greenlighted by the White House. Hersh didn't seem to focus on that potential much in his article.

I went back over the article and I was wrong, the Israel option is actually mentioned here:

A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward Israel as a “serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.”

The people Hersh talked to seemed to be saying that the potential of an Israeli attack is something the White House wants to avoid and it is part of their rationalization for an American move.

 

Oh, and GA, do you have anything to do with blastfishing? 'cause their store link doesn't work, so I can't see what they have...

Well, unless the site itself is the total contents of the spoof.

Nope, I just came across their site and found that I agreed with a lot of their slogans and thought I should credit them in my sig. I noticed that the store didn't work also, but I remember finding one link on the page that took me there. This guy needs a good web designer and a graphic artist. I get the feeling that this guy isn't primarily very business oriented. If I wanted to use one of their slogans on a t-shirt or button, I would just make my own and do a better design job (of course appropriately crediting the site).

 

The people Hersh talked to seemed to be saying that the potential of an Israeli attack is something the White House wants to avoid and it is part of their rationalization for an American move.

Something to consider. Aside from 'Elders of Zion' poop, this could be very ugly if it was Israel versus their surrounding world. They are very capable and intent on existing, as are most nations. If (big if) it gets that bad, what should we do? In the minimum, send in the diplomats. But if that fails, should we do anything? Doing nothing seems irresponsible. Like I posted (here, somewhere else?) Chretien understood Canada's role. We aren't pacifists and we aren't unilateralists.

 

Britain's Jack Straw is denying any British involvement in plans for a pre-emptive strike.
But he also claims the U.S.A. is not planning any military action yet.
Is Straw just trying to protect the element of surprise?

"Military strike on Iran "not on agenda": UK's Straw
Sun Apr 09, 08:49 AM EST
LONDON (Reuters) - A military strike against Iran is not on the agenda and the United States is committed to a negotiated solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Sunday. ...
...The idea that Washington could launch a nuclear strike against Iran was "completely nuts," Straw said in an interview on BBC television."

But perhaps the most important paragraph:
Straw was responding to a report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine that the U.S. administration was stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran. The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.

Source:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/09042006/6/n-world-military-strike-iran-agenda-uk-s-straw.html

 

Respond when asked to by the sovereign nations involved directly in the confrontation and within the treaty role we have committed to including the UN and NATO.

Iran and Israel will be neighbours indefinitely.....at some point it has to be resolved as to the the nature of the neighborhood.
My sense is that Israel intends it to be a ONE nuclear power zone.......and will act on that intention.

This is very much "nose to nose" right now

Iran exploits Israeli retreat from Lebanon- monitoring stations hugging Israeli border, spy planes over Northern Israel
[IMRA: Retreat supporters pointed to the "successful" retreat from Lebanon
to defend retreat from Gaza.]
Iran's spies watching us, says Israel
By Con Coughlin Defence and Security Editor, on Israel's northern border
Daily Telegraph (UK) 4 April 2006
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...ain.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/04/wiran04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/04/ixworld.html

Iran has set up a sophisticated intelligence gathering operation in southern
Lebanon to identify targets in northern Israel in the event of a military
confrontation over its controversial nuclear programme.

Senior Israeli military commanders say Iran has spent tens of millions of
pounds helping its close ally, Hizbollah, the Shia Muslim militant group
that controls southern Lebanon, to set up a network of control towers and
monitoring stations along the entire length of Israel's border with south
Lebanon.

Some of the new control towers, which are made of reinforced concrete and
fitted with bullet-proof reflective glass, are less than 100 yards from
Israeli army positions and are clearly visible for long stretches along
Israel's border.

""This is now Iran's front line with Israel," a senior Israeli military
commander said.
............."Iran is playing a very dangerous game of cat and mouse on our northern border and it could easily spiral out of control at any moment," said the officer..............

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=28949

 

Britain's Jack Straw is denying any British involvement in plans for a pre-emptive strike. But he also claims the U.S.A. is not planning any military action yet.

Wouldn't that be just about word-for-word what he said in the lead up to the Iraq invasion? The Downing street memos proved that he, Blair and Bush were all completely lying their asses off since they had already decided well in advance what they wanted to do. They only needed some time to come up with a cover story.

Fool me once ... ummm ... ummm ... don't get fooled again?

 

Fool me once ... ummm ... ummm ... don't get fooled again?

True in many cases. Ask the moderate Israelis.

 

My sense is that Israel intends it to be a ONE nuclear power zone.......and will act on that intention.

And that's a bad thing? If I had a choice between the present situation and a dual nuclear zone, I'll go with the present situation.

 

And that's a bad thing? If I had a choice between the present situation and a dual nuclear zone, I'll go with the present situation.

how about no nukes in the region?