Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

As attacking Iran appears to be back in vogue for the GOP...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:11 AM
Original message
As attacking Iran appears to be back in vogue for the GOP...
...a little refresher course is in order:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48...

Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 January 2006

The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.

"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."

An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.

1. Blowback in Iraq

The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.

Should the United States undertake military action against Iran, the ramifications in Iraq would be immediate and extreme.

In the first eight days of January, eighteen US troops have been killed in Iraq, compounded by another twelve deaths from a Black Hawk helicopter crash on Saturday. Much of the violence aimed at American forces is coming from disgruntled Sunni factions that have their own militias, believe the last elections were a sham, and hold little political power in the government.

If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos.

2. Iran's Armaments

Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.

According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."

A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."

"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"

It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.

Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.

Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.

3. The Syrian Connection

In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.

Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.

Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.

4. China and the US Economy

While the ominous possibilities of heightened Iraqi chaos, missiles in the Gulf, and Syrian involvement loom large if the US attacks Iran, all pale in comparison to the involvement of China in any US/Iran engagement.

China's economy is exploding, hampered only by their great thirst for petroleum and natural gas to fuel their industry. In the last several months, China has inked deals with Iran for $70 billion dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas. China will purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over the next 30 years, will develop the massive Yadavaran oil field in Iran, and will receive 150,000 barrels of oil per day from that field. China is seeking the construction of a pipeline from Iran to the Caspian Sea, where it would link with another planned pipeline running from Kazakhstan to China.

Any US attack on Iran could be perceived by China as a direct threat to its economic health. Further, any fighting in the Persian Gulf would imperil the tankers running China's liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Should China decide to retaliate against the US to defend its oil and natural gas deal with Iran, the US would be faced with a significant threat. This threat exists not merely on a military level, though China could force a confrontation in the Pacific by way of Taiwan. More significantly, China holds a large portion of the American economy in the palm of its hand.

Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."

"The hardest blow on Americans," concluded Roberts, "will fall when China does revalue its currency. When China's currency ceases to be undervalued, American shoppers in Wal-Mart, where 70 percent of the goods on the shelves are made in China, will think they are in Neiman Marcus. Price increases will cause a dramatic reduction in American real incomes. If this coincides with rising interest rates and a setback in the housing market, American consumers will experience the hardest times since the Great Depression."

In short, China has the American economy by the throat. Should they decide to squeeze, we will all feel it. China's strong hand in this even extends to the diplomatic realm; China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and could veto any actions against Iran proposed by the United States.

5. American Preparedness

American citizens have for decades taken it as a given that our military can overwhelm and overcome any foe on the battlefield. The rapid victory during the first Gulf War cemented this perception. The last three years of the Iraq occupation, however, have sapped this confidence. Worse, the occupation has done great damage to the strength of the American military, justifying the decrease in confidence. Thanks to repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting is at an all-time low. Soldiers with vital training and know-how are refusing to re-enlist. Across the board, the American military is stretched to the breaking point.

Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe.

If Iran and Syria - with their significant armaments, missile technologies and suspected chemical weapons capabilities - decide to engage with the relatively undersized US force in Iraq, our troops there will be fish in a barrel. Iran's position over the Gulf would make resupply by ship and air support from carriers a dangerous affair. In the worst-case scenario, the newly-minted American order of battle requiring the use of nuclear weapons to rescue a surrounded and imperiled force could come into play, hurling the entire planet into military and diplomatic bedlam.

Conclusion: Is Any of This Possible?

The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously.

Iran is suspected by many nations of working towards the development of nuclear weapons, but even this justification has been tossed into a cocked hat. Recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin bluntly stated that Iran is not developing its nuclear capability for any reasons beyond peaceful energy creation, and pledged to continue assisting Iran in this endeavor. Therefore, any attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities will bring Russia into the mess. Iran also stands accused of aiding terrorism across the globe. The dangers implicit in any attack upon that nation, however, seem to significantly offset whatever gains could be made in the so-called "War on Terror."

Unfortunately, all the dangers in the world are no match for the self-assurance of a bubble-encased zealot. What manner of maniac would undertake such a dangerous course? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

George W. Bush and his administration have consistently undertaken incredibly dangerous courses of action in order to garner political power on the home front. Recall the multiple terror threats lobbed out by the administration whenever damaging political news appeared in the media. More significantly, recall Iraq. Karl Rove, Bush's most senior advisor, notoriously told Republicans on the ballot during the 2002 midterms to "run on the war." The invasion of Iraq provided marvelous political cover for the GOP not only during those midterms, but during the 2004 Presidential election.

What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.

Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.

They did it once already in Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. And to build support, they are building the terror in America
Make the people feel threatened and then make a few stories up about Iran supplying al Queda in Iraq and just maybe the public will stupidly follow them right into another folly in the mid-east
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's the new GOP jobs program...
Halliburton will be working over there so nobody has a job to work at over here. If Americans don't want those jobs in the military we will import cannon fodder. After the next sElection we can have a draft, but right now a draft wouldn't be prudent at this juncture politically...that is all except...Sieg Heil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Setting up the mother of all messes
the whole plan is to create a MOTHER-OF-ALL-MESSES so messy that the consequences of just leaving is worse than the mess

we are in the midst of Operation Drag 'n Dump - drag it out and dump it on someone else

this is followed by Operation Cut and Run where bush/cheney and their cohorts cut and run out of DC in Jan 2009

the third stage is operation point and blame - point at and blame the democrats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. They're late
The attack was supposed to be in April, wasn't it? They have to make up for lost time now, so they're really going to try to sell it hard in the next few days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. *some Democrats in support of Israel gave it a boost by voting for the declaration
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 07:31 AM by bigtree
that the U.S. has to prepare for the Iranian nuclear 'threat'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Too bad about this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. the inspectors could very well come away with 'unanswered questions'
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 07:40 AM by bigtree
like the last time inspectors were let in.

Those unanswered questions led to the present round of sanctions, despite the IAEA's assertion that they had found no evidence at all of a weapons program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. Has the UN gotten to point of asking for "Inspectors" to go in and verify for US..though?
I thought UN inspectors that are there have said that Iran is many years away from making just ONE BOMB..and that report seemed to get covered up. So...I assume there are UN Inspectors already there...just not the ones the Bush Crime Family/Cheney would approve of? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. We'll see how people feel about IMPEACHMENT after we attack Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. Impeachment is DOA...and Conyers is YET to do something about Miers DEFYING Appearing
before House Judiciary. Either he's taking his time...getting his ducks in row and giving Crime Family enough "rope" or he didn't listen to Bill Moyers show with Fein and Nichols saying Impeachment must go forward. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. Excellent Will. But it's not only Republicans laying the groundwork
I ran an interesting poll on DU a few weeks back. I asked DUers whether they agreed with the following statement:

"Under Absolutely No Circumstances Can the U.S. Allow Iran to Acquire Nuclear Weapons"

I asked that people give an affirmative answer "only if you are convinced that, at the end of the day, the United States must do whatever it has to do to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons." The poll received 138 votes, with 32% of DU readers voting that they agreed with that statement. Unlike now I didn't make any special effort to alert people to the poll, I just waited for the people who found it on their own to vote in it. Here is a link to that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I also wrote a Kos Diary around that time about how thoroughly the ground work is being laid with the public to attack Iran. "We Are Losing The Fight Over Iran":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/15/133035/232

Granted, many Democrats might take a position that Iran must not be "allowed" to get nuclear weapons without also avidly seeking war with that nation. And I want to presume that a Democratic Administration would, at the very least, first seriously pursue diplomacy with Iran, unlike this or any likely Republican administration. But a real threat exists that Bush/Cheney Administration may initiate armed conflict with Iran while they are still in office. And the fact that so many Democrats are currently singing the exact same song as Bush regarding the evils of Iran (until they get to the final verse where they insert "but let's talk to them first" into their version of the lyrics instead of "so let's bomb them now") means that Democrats are complicit in helping establish the psychological pre-conditions being used to prepare the American people for our next war.

It has been a long slow journey for many anti-war activists to accept that there is a very real possibility that, even after the calamity of Iraq, powerful forces are still at work in America pushing for the next war AND that they have a reasonable to good chance of actually getting what they want. I suspect what you first wrote in early January will be taken a little more seriously upon re-reading it now.

On that note, I also urge DUers to view and spread the word about a YouTube video clip concerning Iran that first aired in July 2006. On this video General Wes Clark directly confronts the fears about Iran expressed by a member of a FOX studio audience, and debunks it, after earlier making the case for diplomacy while sternly warning:

"Otherwise, youre just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and thats something we dont want the United States to do and I dont think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A...


The entire exchange was covered by News Hounds. In doing so they provided a partial transcript, but I urge you to view the video. It is much more powerful. Here is part of what News Hound wrote at the time:


"Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agree with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. " I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"

"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And heres the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 million men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and weve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the diplomacy is different. When you dont agree with people, its even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, youre just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and thats something we dont want the United States to do and I dont think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

After he finished, a woman said, "I disagree with the general, and I agree with Juliet. Were dealing with people that want to kill us. It's like if somebody's holding a gun to you how can you just talk to them?"

Clark again was ready with a response. "Theyre not holding a gun to our heads," he said. "We are there. Its our military thats in Iraq. Its the Israelis that are there with the most powerful force in the region. Iran has no way of reaching us except through Hezbollah terrorists. Were tracking those people in the United States. Im not saying theres no threat, but Im saying dont make the mistake of thinking that this is a head-on conflict like Germany and the United States in World War II. Its not there."

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesle...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Watch out for deception from neocons/neoliberals...
who may make moves to pull out of Iraq, only to engage Iran, and then the Shia will really be enraged, at which point, what do you know, we really do need those bases that have been setup in Iraq.

The DLC strategy is only a softer, more encompassing version of PNAC's, but it is just as hawkish if not moreso.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. How much does it cost to commission a poll? I'd love to see
what the American people think of the ramping up of a possible Iran offensive.

Not that it matters with this administration and Bert the Turtle but maybe semi-sane heads in the Senate could afford a cluue on this one? Especially if we could buy it for them? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. I think it was side tabled until a time when it would take heat off the neocons.
Their notion of perpetual war (read: perpetual profit) was never aborted. I believe they want to create such a mess in the ME that the next president wil not be able to leave. (My more sinister belief is that they will cause such a fiasco that they can put off the next elections especially considering *'s recent signing statements)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. All too possible, all too possible.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I can read a lot into your statement here Will n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. But honest n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
19. Russia is another monkey wrench in this whole situation.
They seem to be getting nervous about our actions in the Middle East and the missile defense system which is why they're pulling out of arms treaties and posturing in a defensive manner.

If Cheney and the PNAC wanted to start World War III, which I think they do, they are right on the verge of it.

If these idiots were in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world would have been nuked into non-existence.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. A Russia/China/Iran alliance is practically a guarantee
for WWIII. I agree with you about Russia and don't believe either they or China would stand idly by if/when there's an attack on Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
21. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. I've been waiting for something to happen
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 07:20 PM by seemslikeadream



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFowNFvmUxw

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that youve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

Theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we cant even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire


something to consider regarding 'funding'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Bush's Inconceivable Interest in Iran Sat Apr-01-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Senior U.S. Officials Want to Hit Iran Tue Apr-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Larisa Alexandrovna: CHENEY TAPS IRANIAN ARMS DEALER FOR IRAN TALKS Thu Apr-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seymour Hersh said something startling about Rumsfeld on Democracy Now Fri Aug-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So former DLC, PNAC member Abram Shulsky feeding Cheney info on Iran?Sat Aug-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Fuck. Iran has started "war games." Escalation may only be expected.Sun Aug-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Attack on Iran is Coming Sun Aug-27-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Grave threat". Yes, it's deja vu all over again. Thu Aug-31-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

UN attacks US nuclear report on Iran erroneous misleading unsubstantiated Sun Sep-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now Tue Sep-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Navy told: Prepare to blockade Iran by Oct 1 Mon Sep-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq Office Wed Sep-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason. Sat Nov-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seymour Hersh: Cheney Says 'Whether Or Not Dems Win-NO STOPPING Military Option With Iran' Sun Nov-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Does anyone still believe the US will launch a full scale invasion of Iran? Mon Dec-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Saudi clerics rally support for Sunnis and Saudi ambassador Abruptly ResignsTue Dec-12-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Act III in a Tragedy of Many Parts - The US Occupation of Iraq Sun Dec-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Century Foundation Iran White Paper Series Fundamentalists, Pragmatists and the Rights of the Nation Tue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Oh shit Tue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. It might not be today or tomorrow or even next month ...BUT..Bush WILL BOMB IRAN...It's known and
the Propaganda to get us all Immune to the devastation has begun...with the FULL VOTE OF THE US SENATE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Yes and I really think "some" people ARE starting to worry he just might do it
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. What a pack of insane morons. An Iran war would be the mother of all quagmires.
Maybe they think it would make Iraq look better or maybe they are hoping for the endless corporate profits that they think WWIII would bring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. "They" think they can pull off "quick surgical strikes" that will pacify
AIPAC..and get them off their back... the Senate...that is. Then Dems have CLEAR RUN in 2008. They will immediately dispell notions of "soft on terror and weak on defense" if they let the NeoCons/Cheney have one last BIG SHOT at cleaning it all up.

"THEY" have been WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING ....THEY'VE FUCKED US AND THE MIDDLE EAST UP...but...they think one more ROBUST MOVE will allow Repugs and Dems to go at it. Dems are fine with this because of '08.

How about throw the Peace Protestors and the Left of the Dem Party UNDER THE BUS...and then Roll back over us and leave track marks and roll back once again to make sure there's nothing left but the tracks in the blood and tears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
30. After the Cornwall incident the Mid EAst region wont have anything to do w/Bush
Blair told Bush to get the US carriers out of the region, they left for a few weeks.

Saudi Arabian missles

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2006/12/now-middle-east-ge...

Iranian offensive and defensive missiles

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/iranian-missile-sy...

"Until recently Iran had relied on the Russian SAM-6 surface to air missile. With a range of 25 km it might be considered a short range or point defense system. The Russian SAM-11 missile looks like it can be fired from older SAM-6 launchers with little work to accommodate the SAM-11 missile. The SAM-6 was first developed by Russia, starting in 1958. By the 1973 yon Kippur war it was a proven system. In August 1992 the NYT. reported "Iran is reportedly negotiating the purchase of SAM-5, SAM-11, and SAM-13 missiles from Russia and other Eastern European countries." Don't forget that the SAM-11 missile looks able to be fired from Iran's existing SAM-6 mobile launchers.

In the Summer of 2006 reports suggested that Iran was looking to buy the Tor-M1 Air defense system, This was confirmed in the first week of 2007 from Russian sources"

Will, the Sunburn, in a hi altitude final approach, can dive, at as much as mach 4+. Even the computerized Phalynx point defense system, will only have 3,4,5 seconds to get a radar fix and shoot.

More on Iranian missiles & Radar

"In part 3 of the series I offer you the Irans S-300PMU-2. Twice the size, of the US Partiot missile & reportedly vastly superior (lacking the reputation of shooting down friendly aircarft), the S-300PMU-2 has been a good source of currency for Russia,

Simply put, stealth bomber coatings are carbon balls in paint. In this layer, there are voids, which can collect moisture. The B-2 bomber is notorious for flying thru moisture laden clouds and then becoming very visible to radar. In Serbia in 1999 a F~117 was shot down. Infra red can see the jet engine exhaust from above. If the Stealth Bomber has to turn, it can be seen."

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/modern-iranian-sam...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
32. Just one look at Bill Kristol or Frank Gaffney (tonight on Tweety) and you will know that
Bombing Iran has always been the next step for these people. They always smile and speak and write Editorials with the greatist of ease. There's never a frown on their brow....their hair doesn't grey and they smile continuously. How can that be...one might wonder?

BECAUSE THEY KNOW! And, they know exactly who is in their pocket. They've always known and that's why they still have credibility with the M$M. They all know... It's just that WE out HERE...thought that things were changing with the Polls. When our Senate votes 97-0 for a Lieberman Amendment that's another "War Resolution" in a thin disguise...they you know why "THEY SMILE," and there's not a cloud in
the sky from where they sit and look out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC