4 out of 4 troops surveyed say we're going to war with Iran

[shadowknows69]

I had the opportunity while working this weekend to actually ask "the question" to four different soldiers on four different rides. Every one said we would attack and go to war with Iran. Hardly a scientific poll I realize but something tells me these guys would know. One even offered this chilling if obvious statement, "And the only way to stop it is to change who's in the White House."
Any questions Representatives? Senators? Generals?


"Can you guys hear us?"
-Eminem, "Mosh"

[Mythsaje]

1. Sure...we're already losing two wars. What's one more? n/t

[CJCRANE]

2. Unfortunately Bushco isn't losing anything

(in their terms).

The chaos in Iraq succeeded in knocking down a rival to Saudi Arabia and opening up new markets for Halliburton etc.
So more of the same in Iran will be a win for them.

[bananas]

3. This will be a cakewalk.

After a massive bombing that will Shock and Awe them,
they will greet us with flowers.
Oh wait, that was Iraq...

[TheBaldyMan]

4. still won't happen, squaddies usually suffer from mushroom syndrome

kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

There is not the slightest chance the the US will attack Iran, Iran will not attack US. Neither has the capability let alone the motivation.

Remember Israel's disatrous foray into Lebanon? Any thought of a land offensive in the Near or Middle East was killed off after that debacle.

[GreenZoneLT]

6. An exchange of missiles is possible

The Bushies really seem to be trying to push Iran into that. I can't think of anything we could do that would make the Iranians push the button, though; they know we'd plaster the crap out of them, and it doesn't do them any good to rain missiles on Baghdad and kill a bunch of Shiites. Hitting Tel Aviv would give the Israelis an excuse to bomb or even nuke them, and they SURE don't want that.

Your points are correct: Grunts never know anything. And there is absolutely no way we could muster up a ground invasion of Iran, even if we were crazy enough to want to. I think they really were planning to do it, back in the heady days after Mission Accomplished, but the Army's sort of tied up at the moment.

I think Cheney thinks the Israeli misadventure in Lebanon was a resounding success, so the chances of them being willing to emulate it in Iran are fairly high. But I doubt we'll shoot first; they're on the record of saying they're going the sanctions route, even after February.

[TheBaldyMan]

7. Newsflash: Iran is a military minnow. An exchange of missles would be one-sided

Iran would sit there and ride out any attack, she wouldn't need to retaliate. The US has nothing to gain from an attack, indeed it could only weaken her position in the Near East.

I'll remind you once again of Lebanon, days of one-sided bombardment and mass civiian casualties in Lebanon vs. the nearly inneffectual comedy rockets of Hizbollah causing occassional civilian casualties in Israel. The crack troops of Israel bogged down a few miles inside the Lebanese border and withdrew after a few weeks. Who came out of that refreshed and invigorated, it's reputation enhanced? Who came out looking like a spent force with it's reputation in tatters?

There will be no attack against Iran.

[GreenZoneLT]

8. Yeah, I don't think we'd fire first

Iran is fairly capable on the missile front, although they're reliant on the North Koreans. We're not talking about Katyushas; they've got some real stuff. It would be fairly one-sided unless for some reason they wanted to shoot Iraq; they really would have an awfully hard time getting hard targeting data for our carriers.

I was apparently mistaken in thinking they can currently engage Israel, except by a suicide-mission air strike.

[sweetheart]

9. oil fields and the straights

Iran could, in 1 firing i'm sure, destroy all the oil terminal and refining assets in the
persian gulf, along with a comprehensive mining of the straights of hormuz. 'we' might
give them a bloody nose, but that will be after they've given 'us' a black eye.

Its the problem with a pure-air-war power, as much as the damage appears intense, unless
they do intensive civilian bombing, a buried army will endure american airwars, but the
world economy will not survive no persian gulf oil.

[GreenZoneLT]

10. Yeah, but it would wreck their economy to the point of revolution

They have an enormous, dissatisfied population, who are kept under the mullah's thumbs mainly by a bread-and-Yankee-Devils strategy that depends on oil revenue and trade with the gulf oil nations. They might shoot at Iraq's oil facilities, but I can't see them going after their trading partners; they're on fairly good terms with Qatar, Dubai, etc. For that matter, they're on fairly good terms with the government of Iraq.

The west and east Asia would have a heck of a time dealing with the loss of Persian Gulf oil, but Iran would literally starve to death, in fairly short order. They don't grow more than a third of their own food, and without oil revenues, their foreign cash reserves would run out in about four months (assuming $300 per person per month for food).

Aw crap, that makes it sound worthwhile for someone truly evil TO knock out their oil facilities. Someone truly, truly, horrendously evil. Someone like Dick Cheney.

[Strelnikov_]

15. And what happens if we do target and destroy their export facilities?

We are already waging economic warfare against them. At that point, they would have nothing to lose.

I am probably somewhat close to your thinking. Any attack is unlikely, and if it comes it will be a air attack on their shell game . . . oops . . . 'nuclear facilities'. IMHO, barring new inputs, I think Iran has accepted that they may be hit, and outside of limited strikes against U.S. military targets, will take the hit and try to parley it into greater standing in the region, and justification for their actions.

Thing is, maybe we should consider the following statement:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill

What happens if this administration destroys their economy. That, combined with the state within a state command and control structure (Revolutionary Guard, Hizbollah, etc.) makes for a very volatile mix.

And as for the loss of Persian Gulf oil, it could well spell the collapse of the industrial economies.

++++

Persian Gulf, Open War, and Petroleum Exports


Open war in the Persian Gulf region could eliminate 18.7 Mbbl/dy, or 45% of the worlds 2005 petroleum export market.

Overnight, for all practical purposes.

Think we will still be able to import that 12.4 Mbbl/dy of SUV go-juice with the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, French etc. all using those dollars they have accumulated to bid against us in what remains of the export market.

On the plus side, we still produce a lot of oil (40%) domestically. We won't starve. But with a 3 gal/month gasoline ration, I think SUV sales will be down.


Just something to ponder.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html

All in Mbbl/dy


Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2005

Saudi Arabia 9.1
Russia 6.7
Norway 2.7
Iran 2.6
United Arab Emirates 2.4
Nigeria 2.3
Kuwait 2.3
Venezuela 2.2
Algeria 1.8
Mexico 1.7
Libya 1.5
Iraq 1.3
Angola 1.2
Kazakhstan 1.1
Qatar 1.0

=====

Above represents 39.9 Mbbl/dy of 42 Mbbl/dy world export market

18.7 Mbbl/dy of above in Persian Gulf region

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. nothing but bad news.

the idea that we would invade iran seemed impossible before 9/11, and frankly, the social revolution, in fits and starts, was taking place there.

now, it is common conversation to discuss HOW and WHERE we will attack them.

This is insane. (not your post, mind you, but how this topic has become so normal sounding)

[TheBaldyMan]

11. That wouldn't make sense from an Iranian standpoint

They couldn't make money from oil sales to China and Europe if their oil facilities have been flattened, not to mention what China and the EU would think of that happening.

No side would have anything to gain from an attack, whatever form an attack might take. The more I think about it the less likely an attack from either side seems.

[bananas]

12. That chart doesn't include the Shahab-3

which could reach all of Israel and most of Saudi Arabia.
Range 1,300 km
Inventory 25-100
Alternate Name Zelzal-3

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm

Designation Stages Propellant Range IOC Inventory Alternate Name
Mushak-120 1 solid 130 km ? Iran-130, Nazeat 10
Mushak-160 1 liquid 160 km Fateh-110 / NP-110
Mushak-200 1 liquid 200 km Zelzal-2
Shahab-1 1 liquid 300 km 1995 50-300 Scud-B
Shahab-2 1 liquid 500 km 50-150 Scud-C
Shahab-3 1 liquid 1,300 km 2002 25-100 Zelzal-3
Shahab-4 2 liquid 2,000 km 0
IRIS 1 solid 3000 km 2005 Shahab 3D
X-55 LACM 1 jet engine 3,000 km 2001 12
Shahab-5 3 liquid 5,500 km 0
Shahab-6 3 liquid 10,000 km 0

[TheBaldyMan]

13. Shahab can only reach the occupied territories and a tiny strip within '67 borders

maybe not even that range when carrying a payload. Countries have been known to exaggerate their military capabilities in the past, Iran is no exception to this.

They couldn't develop a nuclear capability in the next three months, so the warhead would be conventional. Besides which the Iranian government has repeatedly stated that use of chemical or nuclear weapon is unislamic. This has consistently been their stated position since they were subjected to chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

Incidently, that Iraqi chemical weapons capability was supplied by the West to Saddam Hussein's regime. What ever happened to him I wonder?

[shadowknows69]

14. I hope you are right

but you're operating under the presumption that George Bush is capable of intelligent and rational thought anymore.

[Fovea]

20. I understand the factors that underlie your conclusions

a. The Israelis are not going to launch against Iran, despite their stated attack conditions having been transected.

b. The Bush administration will stop short of attack, despite the fact that we have already violated Iranian soveregnity, despite the fact that Bush has a pretty consistent track record regarding belicosity.

c. The attack would be uniformly one sided causing world wide opprobrium. This would be a bridge too far, despite Dubya's willingness to use Willy Pete on Iraqis.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, if I am correct in my observations.

These ideologues do not learn from history. Indeed, a NeoCon charter member, Francis Fukuyama wrote a monograph titled "The end of history." These Straussians will do anything we let them get away with, IMO. And they want a global war, Islam vs Oceania, I mean the West.

[frogcycle]

24. you seem to assume

that the madmen at the top of the chain of command would employ rational thought in making a decision

if barney the scottish terrier whispers to bush "go for it" he will

[shadowknows69]

26. Barney would never do such a thing

he's a Democrat being held against his will.

[butterfly77]

17. I think they will...

because they really believe that they are correct about everything, and they believe that Iran is building nukes just as they believed in WMD,s

[shadowknows69]

25. I highly doubt it actually has anything to do with WMDs

in Iran or obviously Iraq. This is all driven by money and power. WMDs can't touch these guys, they have whole cities built underground for themselves to rule from as the morlocks if the shit they throw every truly reaches the fan.

[butterfly77]

33. It isn't about WMD's

they just want to control, and they have already been planning to hide out in their bunkers while the rest of us have to fend for ourselves...

[burrowowl]

5. The only way to stop Bu$hco is

IMPEACHMENT! It will tie their hands since Congress is not likely to cut funding for fear of being accused of not supporting the troops.
Edit to add call your Congress Critters and tell them to investgate quick and IMPEACH!

[Olney Blue]

16. Bushco: We'll keep doing these wars until we get them right.

[lebkuchen]

18. great journal

I spent part of the weekend reading it.

Looking forward to future logs.

[shadowknows69]

22. thank you very much

lot of hard stories to hear and write

[samsingh]

21. there's nothing left to go to war with.

[shadowknows69]

23. I think that's kind of a comfortable illusion we give ourselves

with guard and reserve we have nearly 3 million in our army <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Military+of+the+United+States> Wiki, yeah I know whatever its on my homepage. BUt in Iraq and Afghanistan at any given time we have approximately up to 200,000 troops. Add to that the fact that those numbers represent a significant number of "recycled" troops who have done multiple tours and it leaves a good sizewd reserve for a megalomaniacal President to start several large fires around the world on his way to the armageddon conflagration he's been planning. I had a guy last night say that only roughly 50% of our military is deployed right now. Bush would bet with those odds and worse.

[lebkuchen]

27. I've read from generals waving warning flags

that Bush couldn't muster up more than 10,000 troops in an emergency situation in another part of the world right now.

[frogcycle]

28. 50% deployed is outrageously high

that is not a sustainable number
25% is the upper limit

think about it - you have recruits in training, various non-combat roles, and you want to give people more time between deployments than the length of the deployment...

[shadowknows69]

29. I didn't say it was sound policy

I'm just saying he'll do it anyway. Part of the plan will be to bomb them back to the stone age first of course.

[samsingh]

30. many of the 3 million are support staff

and not soldiers in the field.

[shadowknows69]

31. Yes I know

as are a lot of the 140,000 in Iraq and the 30,000 in Afghanistan. Hey I know its not a fun possiblility to entertain but there seems to be a whole shitload of soldiers that are pretty sure we're going. Just passing that along.

[samsingh]

32. you have good points

the moron bush might still do something stupid - but can't Congress stop him now?