babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » How Do You See The US War On Iran Getting Started? (Part II)

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How Do You See The US War On Iran Getting Started? (Part II)
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 08 February 2007 08:00 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More than two years ago we kicked around this question in this thread.

Now it's clearer than ever that America (or its proxy Israel) is planning a major bombing campaign against Iran, probably to take place this spring.

Anyone have anything to add to the previous forecasts of how this disatrous aggression will begin?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 08 February 2007 08:37 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An Iranian ambassador in Iraq has been seized by "unknown" forces. This ambassador is rumoured to have been in charge of Iran's intelligence network on the ground in Iraq. The US is likely behind it, but will surely be blamed by Iran in any case. Right now, I'd say it's a 50/50 toss up whether hostilities start with a pre-emptive attack by Israel or an Iranian response to a US provocation.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 08 February 2007 09:23 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another thread goes into the particularly delicate balance of the US dollar at the current point in time... If enough foriegn interests decide that it's no longer worth using the US currency, a mass sell off could occour. The article in there itself suggests that a move against Iran could be the tipping point where an entity such as china sells off trillions in american investments (evidence they already are is provided in that thread).

Unfortunately, with all above known... The man making the calls for the US (who has come out several times screaming 'nonono I make the descisions!!! stop misunderestimating me!) may not know above. I won't pretend to know the innerworkings of the Bush admin, but I'd be exceedingly surprised if Bush would even consider his nation under god could possibly be in a fragile situation. If this dumbass continues to make the calls by himself, then a war within Iran will still be on the horizon.

The big question with an Iran war, is how long will the other veto holding nations allow the US to continually invade Muslim nations before they say enough is enough. We might be at a big political tipping point here... Conventional militaries are no longer dominant. There are many ways to defeat a much large conventional military in todays world... I think we may get to witness the great American military machine fall when the dollar that props it up plummets as well.

If you had asked your question on Iran a year ago (or back when the first threads on this were here), my post would be pointing at the possibility of a full scale invasion... Enough has changed that I no longer think such is possible. IF there is military action taken with Iran, I would guess that we're into the realm of strategical strikes and not full scale invasion... Political climate can change alot over a couple years.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 February 2007 05:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
China signed another oil contract with Iran for $70 billion a few months ago. I think a U.S. attack could prompt the Chinese to react in several different ways. British elite are taking notice of China's investment in debt-ridden Africa, and perhaps offering poorest of poor nations an escape route from the clutches of western imperialism.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 08 February 2007 05:46 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Economist recently published an article that was a pretty good look at the factors that have led up to this point. It is really interesting.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=8668903


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 08 February 2007 07:39 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the whole world would be surprised if Venezuela continued to sell oil to the US after an American strike on Iran. A strategic blow to America, a bonanza to Canadian oil producers?

We will be very lucky if $200 a barrel, rationed gasoline is all we have to deal with. It is very hard to see how an effective aerial attack on nuclear facilities, even using conventional warheads, can fail to produce devastating radio active fallout over a large area. Think of blowing up Chernobyl. We are talking of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths. America would become a pariah state in the world. I ask again, what is Steven Harper's position on a military strike on Iran? Especially since it looks like at least one of our ships would be involved? Why is no one asking him this, or have I missed it?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 February 2007 08:14 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
and perhaps offering poorest of poor nations an escape route from the clutches of western imperialism.

Unfortunately it's just shifting it to 'Eastern Imperialism' in alot of cases... In the case of Chad, the oil China wanted was almost solely under the ground controled by Arabic powers in the region. The oil money coming into these tribes have allowed them to overpower the sorrounding tribes and we get into the genocide scenarios in the Darfur region.


quote:
I think the whole world would be surprised if Venezuela continued to sell oil to the US after an American strike on Iran. A strategic blow to America, a bonanza to Canadian oil producers?

Don't underestimate Hugo... He'll find a way to continue to use Citgo to provide cheap gas straight to american people, all the while avoiding selling to the American 'elite' he despises.

quote:
We will be very lucky if $200 a barrel, rationed gasoline is all we have to deal with.

If Western politicians remain consistant in times of war, we should see a few tax cuts too


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 09 February 2007 08:57 AM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
it's already started. the US has committed numerous skirmishes over the border in Iran. if any country treated the US in a similar fashion, the US would consider it a declaration of war.

as far as the escalation, which perhaps is the question you're asking, the boats the US is sending over there might as well be christened the "USS Pin~ata". the US will keep harassing Iran until Iran does something in self defense, or there will be a completely fabricated incident, like the Gulf of Tonkin.

at this point i think the only thing that can slow down this rush to war is for the United Nations to place sanctions - on the United States.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 09 February 2007 10:54 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Think of blowing up Chernobyl. We are talking of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Well, this is where I differ. A nuclear strike could potentially destroy a lot of the nuclear materials and perhaps limit some of the negative effects. Any strike will cause a spike in radiation levels, but I doubt it would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths - even over the long term.

However, if the Iran-America war begins it isn't going to start with a big strike on nuclear facilities. It is going to begin, most likely, with an increasing level of US and special ops missions in Iran which will lead to Iranian counterops in Iraq and potential support for radical Shiite insurgencies around the Middle East. It will gradually escalate into the US striking the nuclear facilities which will then cause a great deal of internal pressures within Iran to manifest (not a good thing) and Iranian retaliation will use non-convential means such as terrorism. Of course, this is thinking that Israel doesn't make the strike first or Iran does not become aggressive.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 February 2007 11:22 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not sure if I agree with your read on a slow escalation PB... And some of what you said has been going on for the past 2 years anyway. If and When it does happen, the Americans will make strong use of their 3 flank position. The Surge in Iraq, the forces with Afghanistan (that our troops are freeing up), and the fleet will a strike at once. It'll be an attempt at a quick crippling strike... Almost all conventional military equipment requires plenty of fuel, identify and eliminate fuel stores and the current production. Theres a post almost a year old by now in one of these forums that were showing the military presence America is forming in Iraq... And it's hard to miss how well the line up around Irans oil field.

A slow escalation leaves the US admin much more vulnerable to their public, Gives many more opportunities for the Shi'a Iraqi military to turn on the Americans supplying them, and gives other forigen powers time to react. If there is the intent to attack Iran, it'll be a slow quiet escalation (thats already been happening) followed by an extreme quick strike.


quote:

Iranian retaliation will use non-convential means such as terrorism

Ya, we'll be seeing this hypocritical statement pop up a few times too... Launching missiles at facilities is compeltely fine, retaliate in non-conventional manners and you're known as terrorists. So I know if Iran uses covert agents to take out a building in New York, that would obviously be an evil act of terrorism... Does it become more acceptable if Iran had a missile capable of doing it instead?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
2 ponies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11096

posted 09 February 2007 12:28 PM      Profile for 2 ponies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I’m not sure that a US was with Iran is inevitable. Yes, I agree with people here that George W Bush is a nut bar; I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that he thinks he’s on some kind of godly mission to stamp out what he believes is evil and proliferate capitalism. Deterrent is still an option, however, and a lot of other powers throughout the world are involved in the Iran nuclear issue. Even if things move slowly and Iran ends up producing “the bomb”, it’s not a foregone conclusion that the US will attack Iran. The US won’t be able to go to war with Iran without another major power backing them up and who’s going to do that exactly? I’m not military expert, but it doesn’t seem as though the UK has the military capacity to fight two wars in the Middle East, let alone anything approaching a modicum of public support for getting into another war. The diplomatic front has made some progress with Iran vis-à-vis sanctions and perhaps in the background there are other things going on.

I’m inclined to agree that any war with Iran (in the near future) is going to be a peripheral one; border skirmishes with Iranian troops (whether they’re uniformed or “volunteering” in the Iraqi insurgency), Iran continuing to send “aid” into Iraq for the insurgency, etc. It’s sad, and scary, but the US still has enough military clout that it can throw its weight around without having to throw a punch (like another war, whether nuclear or conventional). My point here is the US can exert a tremendous amount of influence by making threats and using “gunboat” diplomacy. It’s not right and I don’t agree with it, but it’s a reality. China has nuclear weapons, but it lacks a blue-water navy and the ability to direct its military might outside the geography of Southeast Asia. The US still has a monster of a military machine; they probably have half a dozen nuclear armed subs in the water at any given moment, not to mention their various fleets that carry nuclear armed cruise missiles. No other state has the power to deliver the terrifying military punch that the US can deliver. I’m not sure that the US would support such a thing; Democrats recently won control of both houses and that was primarily due to being against the war in Iraq. The Democrats aren’t going to amend the constitution so Bush can stay in office for another term; ergo we can probably predict that the next president will be a Democrat or at worst a moderate Republican (fiscal conservative and social liberal who doesn’t want more war). But who knows, I’m certainly no pundit.

We know there are plans for an invasion of Iran on the shelf (it’s undoubtedly part of the Bush Doctrine), but that doesn’t mean it’ll happen. Despite the fact that Dubya is a looney-tune, I’m going to have to give some other people inside the government the benefit of the doubt. Bare in mind that there must be people working in the pentagon who don’t want to see their sons and daughters going off to war; there are plenty of Americans who despise the prospect of going to war – some of these people must occupy positions of influence within the bloated American federal government. While there are undoubtedly plenty of Paul Wolfowitz types who gets an erection when they think of a US nuclear missile detonating in the Middle East and incinerating millions in the name of “security”, there are people who have more level heads and have seen the scourge of war first hand. I agree that an invasion of Iran, or the sustained bombing of Iran, is a good possibility, but I’m not convinced it’s a foregone conclusion.


From: Sask | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 09 February 2007 01:35 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Noise, I'm not drawing morals about the US attacking Iran. I'm being realistic. Iran may use non-conventional means, like kidnapping, terrorism, and attacks against a civilian populace. That's all I'm saying. I'm not drawing any sort of moral compass for you to follow.

Likewise a US attack from the "3 flanks" would be stupid. Tell me EXACTLY what 21-30-odd thousand troops in Iraq are going to be able to do against Iran. They couldn't use them in an attack. The casualties would be far too high and absolutely no successes would come. The new SecDef is less antsy and more realistic than Rumsfeld. Additionally, America knows that doing such a thing would cause a spillover of unbelievable proportions into Pakistan and destabilize that. Remember, America is cozying up to India and India is going to have America's ear on this a lot more than most people think. This whole thing isn't going to happen fast. It isn't going to expose the administration to public pressures (what are they going to do? Smash windows in Chicago?).

And again, commando raids haven't been on going in Iran for the past two years. Reconnaissance has been going on for the past two decades, yes. But not an active special force attack. Any attacks on Iran will be preceeded by a massive diplomatic change and policy declarations coming in from Britain, Russia, China, Germany, and France. As well as American allies within in the Middle East. America will warn them.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 February 2007 02:10 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Noise, I'm not drawing morals about the US attacking Iran. I'm being realistic. Iran may use non-conventional means, like kidnapping, terrorism, and attacks against a civilian populace. That's all I'm saying. I'm not drawing any sort of moral compass for you to follow.

Whoops, sorry PB... I didn't intend to imply you were saying Iran will resort to terrorism, I was pointing out that we should be expecting to see that conversation to come up in the event of a war (and it's consistancy in how it's being used... Our guns and missiles are good, but attacking us with bombs is obviously terrorism). Sorry, I worded that poorly... I didn't mean you meant it that way, I meant we would be seeing it come up in the event of an attack on Iran.


quote:
Likewise a US attack from the "3 flanks" would be stupid. Tell me EXACTLY what 21-30-odd thousand troops in Iraq are going to be able to do against Iran.

Are you aware of how many additional troops the surge within Iraq is calling for? Actually, that makes me curious how many soldiers a naval battle group is composed of.

From a tactical point of view, the 3 flank 'disable them quickly' will be a very desirable outcome for the US military (2 of these flanks are already mobolized within combat roles in the area). If the US did their homework and have identified // can hit a large percentage of oil supplies and disable production, the result would be devestating on Irans capabilities to defend itself. Once it's crippled, then an invasion is ready.

Heh, might also want to point out that oil production capabilities are to meet billions in barrels worth of demand from China... That might be an interesting dilemma.

Should point out... Still in the realms of 'if they attack' and not putting any certainty forward that they actually will attack.


quote:
And again, commando raids haven't been on going in Iran for the past two years.

Information gathering and finding/supplying dissidents so far... I've seen claims of otherwise, but notta substantial (claims dealt more with chasing Iraqi insurgents into Iran).


quote:
Any attacks on Iran will be preceeded by a massive diplomatic change and policy declarations coming in from Britain, Russia, China, Germany, and France. As well as American allies within in the Middle East. America will warn them.

It would be worth checking precident here I'd imagine. How well did America warn them about the invasion into Iraq? sigh, research time.

quote:
The new SecDef is less antsy and more realistic than Rumsfeld.

That is a good point, I'm not as familuar with Gates as I should be... I'm wondering how much he was involved with the 10 billion in aid to Afghanistan?


everything said:

quote:
You know, I’m not sure that a US was with Iran is inevitable.

Neither am I and I'm still looking for evidence of such. I have posted in this thread from the IF it does happen and although theres signs of it... I haven't seen anything that would confirm or deny fully as of yet (and I doubt I will until it does (if it does) happen). I was under the impression the thread was a 'how it's started' and not the will it be started.

From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 February 2007 02:14 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No other state has the power to deliver the terrifying military punch that the US can deliver.

Complete non-sequitor to the thread, but you may be interested to look up information on Americas recent 'first strike' potential. During the cold war, it was readily accepted that if one started firing, the other would fire back. First strike ability means one nation has the ability to completely disable another nation before it can retaliate. Nuclear speaking, the US is quite a long ways off of being capable of this vs it's ex-cold war opponent... But this is mostly due to russian land mass and tactics (If we hide thousands of nukes across russia, odds are a few will survive long enough to fire back). A recent American nuclear arms estimate would suggest that they are nearing first strike capability vs China.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 February 2007 02:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
It will gradually escalate into the US striking the nuclear facilities which will then cause a great deal of internal pressures within Iran to manifest (not a good thing) and Iranian retaliation will use non-convential means such as terrorism. Of course, this is thinking that Israel doesn't make the strike first or Iran does not become aggressive.

Look how prosperous Iran is today compared with the decade-long medieval siege of Iraq. The Yanks invaded Iraq so swiftly that the Russians took notice and began re-arming with nukes. As a result, the Russians are probably the biggest nuclear threat next to the fascist empire. U.S. military mapped-out and recon'd every weapons cache and anti-aircraft gun in Iraq over ten years. I think the U.S. military doesn't have the same advantage with Iran. I think it will be the Democrats' job to implement a several year-long trade embargo on Iran to weaken them before we see a repeat of U.S. military beckoning women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 February 2007 07:42 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a very interesting analysis last month, the former chief of staff of the Russian Army, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, predicted a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran by this April. "Within weeks from now," he wrote, "we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc." I'm afraid this has the ring of truth.

Then you have Gen. Oded Tira, chief artillery officer of the Israeli Defense Forces declaring last month that "an American strike on Iran is essential" for the very existence of the Jewish State. Suggesting that "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," he urgently appealed to the resurgent Democratic Party to work towards that Israeli goal. "As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence," he declared, "we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

Tira specifically urged the Israel Lobby in the U.S. to "turn to Hilary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran." The Lobby seems to be doing a great job at that, Tira's criticisms about Democrats' "foolishness" notwithstanding. All the Democratic presidential frontrunners have assured AIPAC or Israeli audiences that they're at least as hawkish on Iran as the unpopular Bush. Meanwhile the Israeli allegation that Iran poses an "existential" threat to itself, made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the U.S. Congress last year, has insinuated its way into American official discourse....

Gary Leupp


[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 09 February 2007 08:04 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whoops, sorry PB... I didn't intend to imply you were saying Iran will resort to terrorism,

Of course they will. The US is already involved in terrorism against Iran except they employ another euphimism for what they do.

The middle-east war will expand. It will become uglier and more terrible with each passing day. But it will remain there, for many years, festering just below the surface threatening to explode into global war. And that is just where the emerging Eurpean, Asian, and escaping Latin Americans want it. The United States will become trapped in a Chinese finger puzzle with one side labelled Iraq and the other Iran and, all the time, Israel will be there yelling, "pull tighter!".

While the US ties itself to a long-term war, in the process pissing off and alienating a huge portion of the developing world, a huge market in itself, China is setting itself up to be the retail store to the world, while Russia is the gas station, and the rest of the world provides everything from material to grains, becoming the general store. A whole new world becomes possible, while the US is tied down financially, militarily, politically, in keeping the lid on the middle-east while not a) admitting defeat, or b) abandoning Israel who can't keep its eyes of the fight.

This is the end of the American empire and the start of something new. Will it be better? No. Unfortunately, when the meek stand ready to inherit the earth, the body is rusty, the tires are flat, the upholstery is in tatters, and it is out of gas.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 09 February 2007 08:40 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From today's Guardian. Not that I'm getting paranoid or anything, but to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, "no one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of George W Bush":
quote:
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring

Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian

A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled.

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.



Yikes

From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
billF
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12284

posted 10 February 2007 11:31 AM      Profile for billF     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see 2 ways this could play out. The Bush administrations repeated claims of having no plans to attack Iran of late don’t mention strikes by Israel.

So, should Israel make the move, the Iranians could have intermediate range missiles raining down on Israel before the jets got home. More than likely they’d take a “preemptive” stance and launch a significant attack on the Green Zone and every airbase they can think of in Iraq. The Iranians have LOTS of good missiles.

The US reaction “to protect their ally” and respond to an attack aimed at their assets would have to be big. Now, the Iranian reaction in this scenario would be priority targets. US submarines first, they’ve got the nukes. Then, air craft carriers. See, that way, southern Iran doesn’t have to worry about a lot of US fighter planes in the area so, if need be, they can move into another “tanker war” like they did with Iraq.

That’d be providing enough US and Israeli planes get past the nice new TOR-M1 state of the art anti-aircraft missiles.

I have from a guy on another politics forum that “…Russia sold Iran a “few hundred” 3M-82 and Yakhont-22 anti-ship missiles recently. These terrible weapons can travel 3meters above the water (bow level) at mach 2.9 speeds, and they can easily take out a warship or a carrier. The advanced Aegis radar system used by the U.S. Navy might be able to detect these weapons... and maybe stop one or two of them, but not if Iran launches a dozen or more at a target….”

Another poster there who knows the US navy says “…I took a look at the specs for the anti-ship missiles Dicky wrote about, and the truth is that they are fearsome. Mach 2.6 at 3 meters of altitude is hard to shoot at, especially head-on. That's 1/2 mile per second, and I have a hard time believing that the Phalanx or Aegis systems are going to do much against that, especially when there are multiple targets.”

Dicky, a retired British army officer says there’s no way to damage hardened Iranian nuclear sites without using tactical field nukes. So the whole thing gets messy again.

Anyhow, a big problem is the US hasn’t actually fought an opponent that had a relatively modern defense system in so long, they could be over confident again.

The other scenario I see is the Iranians NOT responding militarily, but allowing anti-US and Israeli sentiment to fester in the Middle East. Without exception, and including the Iraqi government, every country in the rejoin has said the US and/or Israel better not start another shooting war. Well, nearly every country in the world has said that except for OUR current government….


From: Thunder Bay ON CAN. | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2007 01:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The U.S. won't attack Iran during this cosmetic government's term, imo. Fascism is 65 percent bluff and bluster, and every once in a while they break the bank to pummel the weakest kid in the schoolyard as a lesson to the rest. The Bush regime is overdrawn wrt budgetary and political capital. Fascism is a three ring circus and part of the show is to wind-down to being simply a psychological terror after the war machine has soaked the taxpayers for all they can afford. Bush is done unless the Iranians get too overconfident and take the bait in the Gulf. The Iranians have not violated any NPT by pursuing nuclear power, and the rest of the world knows it including Ahmadinejad. The parasitic military industrial complex must allow the American taxpayers and economy to recover for at least the next two to five years before drawing more blood.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 February 2007 02:41 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. Yes, Bushco is full of lunatics who think whatever they want to be true, suddenly is, but even people like this have their limits of self-deception, or they'd never have lasted the first year of their term. They already made an utter disaster of Iraq, a country that was demoralised, demolished, and practically demilitarised before the invasion. Iran, by comparison, is strong, healthy, and armed to the teeth. Any invasion would send back bodybags in the thousands within the first week, after failing to hold any ground. Even for these guys, I can't see it.

Bombing campaigns, however, are another matter. That part is probably inevitable. What should happen is to pre-emptively set up a media network to make sure that the brutal cost of these raids in human lives is transmitted aggressively for all to see.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2007 11:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Either way, in order to bomb there would have to be bombers and wing support, yes ?. That should entail flying warplanes over Iranian terrortory, which could possibly result in a downed U.S. plane or two, maybe a Russian-made sunburn missile or two crippling or even sinking a ship anchored in the Gulf. Instant war.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 11 February 2007 11:14 AM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"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

[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Bobolink ]


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 11 February 2007 02:19 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is supposedly from a Reuters report:

quote:
05/02/2007

LONDON, (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has steeply raised the amount of its jet fuel earmarked for the United States military, which is expanding its presence in the Gulf, Middle East trading sources said.

They said state oil company Saudi Aramco may have put aside upwards of a million tonnes of the aviation fuel for possible use by the U.S. military this year, compared with around 200,000 tonnes in 2006.

"I believe that Saudi Arabia was warned in advance of the increased U.S. military activity starting early 2007 and may have allocated 1.0 million to 1.2 million tonnes of jet fuel for possible use by the U.S. military during 2007," one source said.

The Pentagon dispatched a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf last month.


That a fivefold increase in jet fuel from 2006 to 2007, which translates into a lot of extra flying.

From all the evidence--even from two years ago--I take it as a given that the US and/or Israel is going to pull a super-Osirak on Iran at some point in the remainder of the Bush term, and many signs point to this spring as the timeframe...just in time for the four-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

The only question mark for me is whether or not the U.S. will cross the nuclear rubicon and use nukes (probably the so-called bunker busters) in a pre-emptive strike.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 11 February 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This has been noted on a few sites.

upi

quote:
At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.



From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 11 February 2007 06:23 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I could have one childish, selfish, absolutely-does-nobody-any-good wish in this life, it would be the opportunity to slap the smug right off that man's face.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 11 February 2007 08:44 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by drgoodword:
This is supposedly from a Reuters report:
That a fivefold increase in jet fuel from 2006 to 2007, which translates into a lot of extra flying.

From all the evidence--even from two years ago--I take it as a given that the US and/or Israel is going to pull a super-Osirak on Iran at some point in the remainder of the Bush term, and many signs point to this spring as the timeframe...just in time for the four-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

The only question mark for me is whether or not the U.S. will cross the nuclear rubicon and use nukes (probably the so-called bunker busters) in a pre-emptive strike.


Well they have to fuel all those planes house on th 4 attack air craft carrier battalions awaiting deployment. I would say they are not going order gas they are not going to use eh?!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9457

posted 12 February 2007 02:52 PM      Profile for Phred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not to mention those 200+ mph anti-ship torpedoes Iran has. I saw a nice documentary about them on The Fifth Estate not long ago. Those things pack some hurt!
From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 February 2007 06:12 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A discouraging, but not surprising, internal EU report...
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 February 2007 12:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How is it that Pakistan and India were able to build bombs without the same kind of attention that oil-rich Iran is attracting ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 February 2007 12:40 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
A discouraging,..EU report...

Discouraging? The way people, and it seems you too are talking, is as if it is going to happen tomorrow.

quote:
Last year Ernst Uhrlau...said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.

From Svens link.

Frankly, I think it is encouraging. There is a hellva a lot that can happen in the world in 3-8 years, the Mullahs may well be gone and a democracy in place if the majority have their way. There is room for a lot more diplomacy rather than "nuke 'em now or they will have nuclear capabilities in 8 years and may be able to bomb Israel".

Which of course Iran would most likely never do, they would not destroy access to one of their Holiest sites.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 February 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We know the hawks want a regime in place that will sign crooked oil production deals, "PSA's" I believe they are referred to nowadays. Substitute Ahmadinejad for Mossadegh, and Michael "Sterling" Hayden and Bush for the Dulles brothers, and it's 1953 all over again.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677

posted 13 February 2007 01:30 PM      Profile for Palamedes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, traditionally the tactic the US likes to employ is to push the envelope and antagonize the target until such time as the target responds. Once Iran responds by firing at American troops, tanks or planes - then the US can escalate and march in and pretend that it is simply defending itself.

However, given US propaganda efforts in the past couple of years, it seems clear that the US plan is to create a myriad of reasons as to why Iran must be invaded. Some of these include:

- threatening Israel
- developing nuclear weapons
- supplying arms to Iraq
- supplying arms to terrorists

They may also mention that the cousin of the brother of a neighbour or someone who made out with someone from Al-Qaeda got hospital treatment in Tehran too.

There is also a good chance that they will show a connection between Iranian leaders and some terrorist group from 30-70 years ago.

Then, they will pick one of the big reasons, plunge in, keep switching what the actual reason was for going into Iran - secure the oil, and then make some minor Western improvement to human rights and democracy by eradicating Iranian cultural and religious practices.

Then whenever someone questions their motives, they will point to the fact that women now have such and such right, gays are no longer punished, etc etc. - as if these improvements in human rights justify 50,000+ dead people - while they hand out generous contracts to all their buddies who will give them kick-backs once they are out of office.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 15 February 2007 04:49 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least we're not the only ones thinking this can happen... CNN has Pelosi going on the offensive regarding Iran:
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.


The day after Bush announces (CNN again):

quote:
The new troops will keep the level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at about 27,000, the highest number of U.S. troops there since the October 2001 invasion.

Surge into Iraq was the first front to be boosted and now Afghanistan. Just need to get the fleet in place to attack from 3 fronts...

Nice to see Pelosi sees it happening... Might make it that much harder for Bush to do.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 20 February 2007 03:21 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The GOP blocked the Iraq sure bill and all the Democrates are doing is now saying they will put a a flurry of anti-watr legislation:

quote:
After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they'll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President [sic] Bush's troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation "just like in the days of Vietnam." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said Democrats would be "relentless."

GOP blocks

However, the BBC is reporting this:

quote:
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 20 February 2007 05:28 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the same BBC report:

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 20 February 2007 07:31 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
From the same BBC report:

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.


This stood out for me too from that BBC report. So this is to be their casus belli. U.S. soldiers have been killed every month by the dozens for the past four years, but now Iran's behind it. And Iran must be stopped.

Will even hard-core Bush supporters buy it?

Another thing about that BBC report...it reminds me of NYT Iraq invasion plan leaks in 2002.

At the time I believed, and still believe, that the leaks were part of a high-level internal debate in the Pentagon between Rumsfeld's civilian team and the generals who knew the invasion would be a disaster. This BBC report strikes me in the same vein, because the information must have come from a very, very high source, and the leak is probably informally approved of by both the UK government and military, along with the US military, at least the faction opposed to this third act of the neocon grand middle eastern plan.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 20 February 2007 08:01 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If a war with Iran starts I think it will be this way.

1. British subs will launch missiles
2 US and British air craft will bomb, strafe and attack
3. French Foreign Legion will be dropped to seize the nuclear plant being built
4. Russian special ops will land in Tehran with the responsibility of protecting foreign nationals in Tehran


but that is just my guess


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 20 February 2007 08:10 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by drgoodword:

This stood out for me too from that BBC report. So this is to be their casus belli. U.S. soldiers have been killed every month by the dozens for the past four years, but now Iran's behind it. And Iran must be stopped.

Will even hard-core Bush supporters buy it?


A variant question is: when the electronic media shifts into accellerated fear-mongering overdrive will there be sufficient voices to make any difference?
I doubt it.
The now oft-repeated words of that previous war criminal have always worked well for US hegemony:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 20 February 2007 09:50 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm, JPJ... You are assuming the attack on Iran will come from multinational forces. Russian authorities from a few levels (from ex-KGB to Putin) have been making consistant attacks on US foriegn policy within Iraq, France is a very unwilling ally, and British citizens aren't exactly pro-bush wars any longer.

I'd imagine the move on Iran will be no different than Afganistan or Iraq. The only way the attack on Iran will be considered multinational is if you consider the US supported Afghan troops (and other 'Coalition of the willing') as multinational. Besides, US military spending is at the point where it doesn't need international assitance in it's invasions. Any nation dependant on US intervention to maintain it's military (Israel, Afghan, and Iraq) will most likely be dragged along with.

Would be interesting if the opressed Iraqi's side with Iran/Shia interests and the entire Iraqi military the Americans have been training and fighting side by side with could become a potent anti-American weapon.


quote:
1. British subs will launch missiles

I wouldn't know why british in particular... The missiles would accompany a sea based air attack, and I'd imagine US missiles, not british.

quote:

2 US and British air craft will bomb, strafe and attack

US and Israeli aircraft will... Heh, so American and american funded aircraft will be used ^^ Israel has little say in this, with their extreme ties to the US, they will be dragged in regardless (and maybe dragged into a local war with Iran supported Hizbollah and other anti-crusader and anti-zionist factions.

quote:

3. French Foreign Legion will be dropped to seize the nuclear plant being built

I cannot see France sacrficing it's growing world image as the balancing act to US actions in Muslim nations. If France were to outright involve themselves, they may see riots in their own nation spawn from it.

quote:

4. Russian special ops will land in Tehran with the responsibility of protecting foreign nationals in Tehran

I cannot see Russia joining the actions... I would expect them to further distance themselves from the US.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 21 February 2007 10:30 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As an alternative to the advance media-preparation approach talked about earlier, there is a reasonable possibility that much of the propaganda justification for the war on Iran will only really be pushed AFTER a mainly surprise attack.
The rhetoric would go something like: "We had to act fast with the element of surprise because Iran was ...[insert lies here]".

Although there has been sabre-rattling and fear-mongering from the US and media, it has not been near the level that preceded the Iraq war.
This has been noted elsewhere:
The Neo-Con dog that isn't barking

A few reasons for the administration not to provide a significant press lead-up to the attack:

**Those captains of industry and economy (that is, those who are not particularly allied with oil or military products) are very nervous about the short, intermediate and even long term effect on the economy of such an attack, an attack which will have greater global impact than the Iraq takeover. These people still have clout in the media and could mount some oppossition.

**Some in congress could present counter-measures to a proposed attack, or at least provide more opposition and raise doubts about the venture.

**More people think they were lied to about Iraq and are a bit more skeptical.

**A shiny new war in progress has always given the administration an atavistic boost in the polls--with the help of the press.

**This is a lame-duck presidency which may consider the pursuit of its mid-east agenda more important than limited negative carry-over effects on the "new" Republican presidential team.


A recent artical in the New Statesman which gives the likely extent of Iranian targets:

Ready to Attack


"American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq...."


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 February 2007 10:44 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike

By Con Coughlin in Tel Aviv
Last Updated: 3:31pm GMT 24/02/2007

"# Cheney step the rhetoric against Iran
# American armada prepares to take on Iran
# Con Coughlin: Ready for war
# Vicki Woods: Iraq inquiry could stop Iran war
# In pictures: On board the USS Eisenhower
# Audio: Damien McElroy on the deck of the US flagship

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons...."
Israel negotiates air corridor


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 February 2007 03:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran
quote:
...[T]he American Israel Political Action Committee is the main political force urging - indeed, demanding - U.S. action. That's the AIPAC already under scrutiny for receiving classified information about Iran from Lawrence Franklin, former Defense Department subordinate of Douglas Feith. (That's the neocon Feith who supervised the Office of Special Plans - headed by Abram Shulsky, the neocon specialist on Leo Strauss who currently heads up the Iran Directorate at the Pentagon - that shamelessly cherry-picked intelligence to support the Iraq attack. That's the Franklin who worked in the OSP, and was sentenced last month to 13 years in prison. Feith has not been indicted on any charge and continues to insist in defiance of reason and even a Pentagon internal investigation finding it "inappropriate" that his office's disinformation project was "good government." Small wonder Gen. Tommy Franks, formerly head of the U.S. Central Command, famously called Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Congressional investigations are just now getting underway into Feith's role in facilitating the invasion of Iraq.)

That's the AIPAC embarrassed by the indictment of its policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman for illegally conspiring to pass on classified national security information to Israel. Despite the already intimate ties between Israeli and U.S. intelligence (documented by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski among others) it seems the Israelis felt obliged to spy on the Pentagon to learn just how inclined the Americans were to oblige them by attacking Iran.


Gary Leupp

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 26 February 2007 10:48 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More states give Israel airspace for attacks on Iran.

"Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response."

Nato's pressure on Turkey to comply is also discussed there.Haaratz, Feb. 25

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2007 11:24 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Oh my goodness! Don't the Israelis know that Iraq is "sovereign"?

quote:
June 28, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's interim government was sworn in Monday after the United States returned sovereignty to the nation two days ahead of schedule.

The official handover of sovereignty occurred at 10:26 a.m. (2:26 a.m. ET), when former coalition civil administrator L. Paul Bremer gave interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a leather-bound transfer document.

Some Iraqis dismissed the event as meaningless as long as U.S. troops occupy the nation, but others said the handover was a step in the right direction.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 February 2007 11:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just wanted to interject this here since it's topical, although slightly thread-drifty - but I think it can be forgiven on a discussion board of activists. Not sure what other cities are doing, but here's what's happening in Toronto:

quote:
DON'T ATTACK IRAN - PREPARE NOW FOR EMERGENCY RALLIES ON DATE OF ATTACK

DATE: Same day as attack on Iran
PLACE: Outside US Consulate, 360 University Avenue (between Osgoode and St. Patrick subway stations)
TIME: 5 p.m. - 7 p.m.
INFO: www.nowar.ca stopthewar@sympatico.ca 416-795-5863

The Toronto Coalition to Stop the War is issuing a call to all its members and supporters to prepare now for emergency rallies and demonstrations in the event that the US attacks Iran in the coming weeks and months.

The mainstream press has been full of articles and reports about the US build-up to war and its attempt to blame its failure in Iraq - its own creation of the last four years - on Iran.

In a re-run of the case for war made in 2003, George Bush is now making similar allegations about Iran. And just like Bush's claims about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, these claims are completely false.

Bush is trying to find a way out of the mess in Iraq by expanding the war to Iran. The anti-war movement needs to prepare now. In the event that the US attacks Iran, please join the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War in this response.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 26 February 2007 11:40 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the fallout of attacking Iran would be harder to live with, than a nuclear Iran.

The neo-cons know this too. So, I don't think it will happen.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 11:53 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities

Heh, thats as bad as calling the Afghanistan army part of the 'coalition of the willing' that invaded Iraq ^^ The irony of an American proxy state asking if America will let it fly over American occupied territory is great


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2007 12:59 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bush is trying to find a way out of the mess in Iraq by expanding the war to Iran.

I believe this to be quite true. There is a logic to war, a tendency to expand beyond national borders.

In the Vietnam era, the US eventually invaded Cambodia (just the "sanctuaries" though!) and also Laos (by proxy). In each case, it was a desperate hope to avoid defeat that lead to the expansion.

In Afghanistan, there is clear pressure for the invasion of "sanctuaries" in Pakistan; and there may be sanctuaries on the Iran/Afghanistan border, too.

If we don't want a much wider Iraq war, we have to protest its extension to Iran.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 01:37 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In Afghanistan, there is clear pressure for the invasion of "sanctuaries" in Pakistan; and there may be sanctuaries on the Iran/Afghanistan border, too.

Pakistan - Afghan border... Of course. The Iran Afghan border not so much. Remember AQ is Sunni aligned, which are actively fighting with Iran-backed Shi'a groups throughout Iraq. Besides, it's most likely America has stacked that border preparing for an Iran invasion anyway... I'm not sure how much of a sanctuary that would be.

quote:
If we don't want a much wider Iraq war

We really start to encroach on the ground where it looks like Christian nations (Bush was sworn in on a bible afterall) are purposefully attacking the Muslim nations of the world, and are actively use 'Anti-Islamic-Extremism' as the banner to do so. If you are familuar with Bin Laden, this is very much how he wants the world to be seen as... Muslims united as one nation against the Christian/Western Crusaders and the Zionists.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca