Wow.

Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq made sense?

From a purely military perspective, it makes complete sense. You're twisting the meaning.

The smartest military move would be to announce an end to any nuclear program.

That would ensure the least possible damage militarily to Iran.

If their nuclear facilities were attacked, the dumbest thing they could do militarily would be to attack US bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the region.

That would be the surest pathway to the most possible damage and destruction.

Iran would be foolish to not seek greater deterrent capability.

It has had exactly the opposite effect of "deterring" an attack - it is actually the sole reason why anyone is talking about attacking them at all.

No threat of imminent attack, though. No international sanctions.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the sanctions against Iran have been agreed to by many many countries around the world.

All of this a result of the potential nuclear weapons program.

Aren't most people here opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons?

For some reason, some "liberals" have started thinking nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Don't understand it. Don't want to understand it.

Pleased as punch

And the SAVAK death squads that kept the Shah in power, trained by the US, were also extremely happy-making... I'm sure those who remember SAVAK are really hoping that more US torturer-trainers will come around.

Good times...

Iran hasn't invaded or attacked another country in over 300 years.

Iran has the right to defend itself.

The US has nukes, Israel, Pakistan, India and other countries have nukes.

Iran is not a backwater country like Iraq or Afghanistan, it will defend itself just as any country would, if possible.

Did or did not Iran storm an embassy and take some 50 or so people hostage for a little over a year?

Did or did not the U.S. overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran?

think poor widdle Iran is just misunderstood and is the wronged one in which cause nevermind.

Bologna. Utter horseshit.

The RW wants desperately to go to war with Iran, completely regardless of their attempts to attain more destructive weaponry or not. The whole country could completely end all weaponry projects tomorrow, shut down the military, hand over anything more dangerous than a bic pen to the US, and convert the whole nation to raising soft fluffy bunnys, and it would change nothing. If PNAC and their ilk are re-elected to power, the only chance Iran has to avoid invasion is something big and bad enough to be deterrent. And that would be nukes.

Not saying its impossible of course but seeing as they didnt invade N Korea to stop them I dont think they will invade Iran especially not with the failure that was Iraq under their watch.

But those observations make it fairly apparent, in my opinion. From McCain singing "bombombom Iran" to Santorum's comments about how they are coming for Missouri, It seems fairly clear that Iran is their next target. The past makes it clear that war, even bloody, wastefully, pointless war, is not something they have any interest in shying away from, as long as there is the prospect for money to be made and power to be gained.

As to north Korea, why would we invade them? They don't have anything we particularly want, and it might just piss off China, who is a big bad no matter which way you cut it. Plus now they apparently have Nukes, so there is that added to the reasons not to bring that conflict active. Iran does have resources we might like to control, and China doesn't particularly care for them.

Whether a state is attempting to get nuclear weapons is tangential to whether our homegrown warmongers want to invade them. Our reasons for conflict with Iran have little to nothing to do with whether they are developing nukes. Otherwise Pakistan and North Korea would never have been allowed to join the nuclear club.

Obama isnt stupid enough to piss off Russia and China that much which is what would happen if we invaded Iran same for most of the other nations nor is the GOP that stupid, at most we might do a strike on the plants themselves but we will not invade them for their "resources".
Now would I personally support such a strike? I cannot say that no I wouldnt because Iran with nuke capability would imo be a clear and present threat due to both their provocative nature of the government towards the international community as well as its brutal treatment of its own people.

O I L


how much oil does NK possess?

"No one was threatening Iran until they started to pursue nuclear weapons."

The British/ US coup of the 1950s?

The US helping Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war

Any of that ring a bell with you?

But yes that stuff actually did happen but please dont misuse that to turn a blind eye to Irans actions both in the past when they took innocents as hostages and currently with the brutal suppression of their own people as well as the provocative path they have been taking with their nuclear program.

nukes we would not have attacked it.

all attack (use our nukes on them) instead which would have been even worse.
But that aside what sucks is our government was the one that put him in power in the first place and helped cover up for him for his actions.

Note I said retaliatory strikes, not preemptive - the latter would extremely counter-productive politically and militarily.

Pentagon has repeated said that unless we occupy Iran for a long period (something the US cannot do, as a practical matter), it is likely that a US or combined strike will not knock out Iran's nuclear program, and just make it more likely that they will eventually retaliate against us, possibly with nuclear weapons that can be purchased from other sources.

If we were to actually bomb Iran, we would do so over a many month period using every conventional ordinance in our inventory, during which Iran and its allies would be throwing everything they have against us and any third countries involved in the operation. It makes no sense once bombing starts for Iran to not carry out retaliatory attacks against US bases and other targets in the region and globally.

So, no, from a military and political perspective, it doesn't make sense for Iran to renounce its program. They see it as essential to their longterm national survival and strategic interests. Same with us, same with Israel, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. We're already in a situation of de facto mutual deterrence, and that can not be safely upset by threat of conventional military attack.

Doing so would end any threat of a US and/or Israeli attack and it would cause the economic sanctions on them imposed by much of the international community to be lifted.

It would be a win/win.

else. It is useful to have a target. If not for one reason, then another.

This is my essential argument.

No one objects to that.

Certain countries-US included, seem to feel some sort of right to dominate the rest of the world. I'm a Senior citizen, seen and lived through many wars. I cannot imagine that the next one will be like. How many more millions killed and maimed.
I have had it with any country that pulls any more of this BS.

The middle east tinder box will go up in flames. We and those we love will all suffer and die in retaliation.
Is this to be the way it will be forever?

The American Military Industrial Complex and it's bastard child The Pentagon, will NEVER allow peace in our lifetimes. They control far too many members of the insane Kabuki theater we call the Congress of the United States.

At least half of the yearly wealth of our country - our GNP, our taxes - goes to support the military infrastructure. The MIC will not allow that to change.

Neanderthals. And who fights the wars? Not the ones who start them or their families. It's everyone else who suffers. If there would be any threat at all to the originators, they'd run and hide in their fully-stocked underground bunkers, laughing at the rest of us poor fools who listened to them in the first place. If anybody came in and bombed my house or hurt my family, I'd fight them like hell and I certainly wouldn't forgive them. Do people forget that Iraq and Afghanistan, Viet Nam and still probably Japan hate us because we killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in their countries? Does anybody really expect them to lie back and take it and forget it????? Even our own American Indians were treated like animals, herded and slaughtered by ignorant, violent, illiterate narcisistic invaders. Sorry. That's not how it works. Not now or ever. Any country would retaliate.

NO MORE WAR!...especially like our darling GOP's wars of CHOICE. How pathetic and disgusting is that??? These people make me ashamed to be white. White males make up the majority and are poor excuses for human beings. Unfortunately, they probably lived with racists all their lives so they definitely need to be de-programmed and re-educated. But that would take centuries, I'm afraid. Keep standing for peace. Get the money out of politics and much of this will stop. GO Occupiers!

Although I share the sentiment for universal peace, facing reality as it is and denouncing it is important.

Has there ever been any ONE SECOND of TOTAL PEACE in the known History of this species, all around the world?

Sadly, no.

If there needs to be ONE MILLENIUM (or INFINITY) of TOTAL PEACE some day, wake me up please.

We need other ways of resolving disputes than bombing and invasions!

Edited to add: Author Steven Pinker did historical research on levels of violence and warfare. His thesis is, that both are actually declining. He puts his arguments into his latest book: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

Pinker is more than just another popular author; he's a recognized authority on language and the mind.

Sadly, the United States is an outlier on this trend, both in starting wars and in violent crime.

We haven't learned our lessons.

hoo boy do I hear you

I was right.

Is AP known for being either Pro or Anti Iranian?

What would be sensible would be embracing peace.

Especially when they countries you are thinking of retaliating against have much much larger militaries than you do.

They should just roll over and die, right?

Muslims shooting back?

Where do you get this nonsense from?

What does the religion have to do with anything?

People of all religions (and no religion) should embrace peace and avoid military conflict.

Good lord - where do you get this from?

Attacking Iran is not a "fucking awesome idea" - what are you talking about?

Of course attacking Iran is a bad idea - the whole thing is insane.

This nonsense about teams and "bloodthirsty nutjobs" and "Muslim nations bending knee to Tel Aviv" - where is this coming from??

Israel should not attack Iran or anyone else. Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons. An agreement should be reached between Israelis and Palestinians resulting in two states living side by side at peace with one another.

These are my positions on the region.

You clearly have some issues comprehending Oberliner's posts whether here or in other forums.

I can't believe anyone thinks that that defending oneself is lunacy.

What a strange attitude to have.

Then no one would be threatening any kind of attack.

other countries won't feel the need to have their own too.

I thought that was a generally agreed upon progressive idea.

Or agressive states (read the US) having an arsenal that could destroy the world umteen times over?

I think this will turn out to be much ado about nothing.

The sanctions and international pressure will have the desired impact - Iran will back down from its pursuit of nuclear weapons and Israel will not attack.

Jack shall have Jill;
Nought shall go ill;
The man shall have his mare again, and all shall be well.

When the forces you are striking back against have militaries that are significantly larger and more powerful than yours especially.

Iran has the right to defend themselves as does any other country who is subjected to military attacks.

The war drums are sounding; and they are getting closer and closer...

Good for saber rattling and boosting internal morale, but essentially meaningless.

Is there a nation state on the planet that has an official policy of non retaliation to acts of aggression?

If there is, let me know, so I can move there, and take over.

It is telling Turkey that, if an attacking force is based in Istanbul or Ankara, then Turkey will be targeted for retaliation, even if the attack in question is not carried out by Turkish forces. Likewise for Kyrgystan. Armenia. Pakistan. Egypt. Kuwait. Yemen. Etc.

It may be something the US and Israel want to ignore, but is it something that Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Iraq would care to ignore?

PB

Wow - what is with these responses?

Where have all the pacifists gone?

What was the vibe you got with respect to the US attacking other countries?

That you conflate the two as equal shows you to be very intellectually dishonest, Oberliner.

That would be intellectually consistent, wouldn't it?

Could one not also oppose aggressive war, and at the same time be more comfortable with self defense or retaliation against aggression?

I would guess that most posters on DU who opposed our aggression against Iraq, would have supported our participation in WWII, even if not supporting every iteration of that participation.

PB

Very few cheering on attacks of any kind.

by Iran to be lunacy. Actually, I think it's more of warning to fellow ME countries not the US or Israel. It is a clear warning that they will retaliate if one of the states offers air space, etc.

At this point it's a lot of sabre-rattling and the like.

Actually acting on this, however, is what I think would be lunacy.

lunacy is kinda an assured point.

I am a pacifist. I do not approve of any of this.

When a country is attacked, unless it is run by pacifists, it will usually respond, and more often than not it will respond with violence. And since, to the best of my knowledge, there are no countries run by pacifists, what is lunacy to me is just how the world is to most. One does not have to approve of it to acknowledge its existence.

in the last war.

You've got no problem when Israelis and Americans are launching attacks and killing people, you just have a problem if those people decide to fight back, rather than allow themselves to be exterminated by the übermensch armies.

I've got a big problem with Israelis and Americans launching attacks and killing people.

"exterminated by the übermensch armies" ??

What is that about?

You don't show it very well.

so yes, any country that can defend itself will.

Iran is not a backwater country like Iraq or Afghanistan and also has strong allies.
So Iran can defend itself.

But the US and Israel are quite hippocritical about other countries defending against attacks.

I was one of the first people on Twitter to capture a screen shot of the a Fars News Agency article about the Isfahan explosion. The story was taken off the page just to generate some kind of publicity. http://twitpic.com/7l714y

They are all talk. Over the years their rhetoric and propaganda has gone up several notches. A few strikes by Israel and the US and their nuclear program is toast.

I'm not a war monger at all. I would rather see this play out under the current sanctions.

The ball is in Israel's court and I think their mind's are made up. They see this a threat to the entire region. Heck, most of the countries in that area don't want a nuclear Iran.

"A few strikes by Israel and the US and their nuclear program is toast. "

That is quite contrary to everything I've read by analysts


Well HECK it'll be simple and clean right? Won't be any devastating economic repercussions (like in Europe, which is already on the brink)...and Iraq won't be a problem, I mean there are no Iranian sympathizers in that country at all...yeah HECK, not a big deal


And HECK bombing nuclear material won't cause all sorts of enviromental difficulties..

Israel is the bad guy here, not Iran

I would love to know what kind of glue you are sniffing.

Or at least being set back to square one from rubble.

Do you know? Maybe you shouldn't be so blithe about it.

Is anyone thinking here at all?

When the Israeli's hit the site in Iraq, there was NO NUCLEAR MATERIAL there

There are tons of enriched uranium at the sites in Iran


Sooo what happens when a bomb or rocket hits it? Hmmm?

Ever hear of fall-out?




Again, is anyone THINKING at all here?

Maybe they shouldn't have fucked with the stuff.

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

that air power can cripple their nuclear program. Israel simply does not have enough long range bombers and the kind of payloads to carry this out to a conclusion. America might have that ability, but it would require a sustained and very dangerous campaign. Even then given the somewhat archaic but nonetheless large number of entrenched defenses - the results would be doubtful and would be extremely costly. The enormous number of basic missiles and other military hardware possessed by Iran, there use of hundreds of hit and run speed boats and their basic missiles buried in hostile and unapproachable terrain will insure catastrophic consequences for any attack and the outcome will be doubtful and inconclusive at best. The economic cost caused by stratospheric oil prices will be enormous.

that might hypothetically strike us. This sounds far more conventional from Iran; strike a country in retaliation after it strikes you.

is what I was meaning.

I'll argue that the effects on the ground are similar(a lot of innocent casualties), but there's a big difference between a country harboring a few people who are terrorists versus using military installations in other nations for military strikes. In a case like that, those countries become legitimate targets.

But they are holding the attackers and the nations that harbored them responsible.

Terrorism is one means of attack. Those with better financial backing attack differently.

I am not justifying Iran's statement. I am saying is that they, like the Bush doctrine, hold the attacker the and the nation who facilitated the attack responsible.

A terrorist group is a rogue organization that probably has no ties to the nation they are hiding out in.

On the other hand, a nation that decides to grant its airspace, or a portion of its armed forces in an attack on another nation, is in fact officially participating in said attack.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

And that they feel justified in attacking both the attacker and those that aided the attacker.

In that regard, it is like the Bush doctrine.

I am not arguing the merits, I am comparing that Iran holds attackers and those that provided them a means for the attack accountable just as the Bush doctrine holds attackers and those that provided them a means for the attack accountable.

Problem is what comprises an attack.

feels is an attack.

against their nuclear facilities (and of course their air defense systems) to be an attack.

This seems to be the worst sabre-rattling between Iran and Israel that I've seen since some time.

What troubles me is that the Israelis say that the Iranians are about to take everything underground to the point that current U.S. bunker-buster bombs cannot do much harm, if any.

That means that Israel must act now if they are going to do much to stop Iran.

Netanyahu and his friends are really hard core.

They may be playing politics to ensure future U.S. support in view of the Obama administration's moderate positions on Israeli actions in the West Bank and elsewhere.

On the other hand, they may really feel theatened enough to act on their worst fears.

This just does not feel like previous alarums. It feels more real.

As much as I deplore another war this seems to be spinning out of control. No matter what happens the United States will side with the survival of Israel. Iran will not find support with their neighbors and what support they get from Russia and China is strategic posturing. The time is coming war will result in a wasteland.

about the political season in Israel. I'm all fumble fingers at this late hour, and I can't seem to get the link into this post.

Anyway, the Haaretz piece says that last week Netanyahu competed with an even more right-wing members of Likud in a primary for the Likud leadership. Perhaps his political situation has led him and his supporters to make statements that they do not necessarily wish to turn into action. Voting in the final round in the leadership race will take place later this season. I'll be looking to see if all this talk of attacking Iran simmers down after that vote.

--a bit louder than nuclear titmouse, North Korea. Iran (and Israel) will tone down their rhetoric if China and the Russian Federation finally join the rest of the UN members in the economic sanctions. If that doesn't happen soon though, we might see some nuclear fireworks.....and the Middle East will never be the same.

If they are attacked they have every right to strike back with everything that they have.

That'd be what they have....left.

And the kicker, as OWS is learning like movements before them learned, if you want war, protest for peace.

Iran's nuke areas are going to be droned within weeks. That's pretty common knowledge. Telegraphed in the SOU even.

We can stunt their nuclear program. But we can't stop President BOB from wearing suits 4 sizes too big.

har har har


dead iranians....will be a good laugh for you, right?



when the us economy ends up collapsing you can laugh about that too


Im outta here. The cheerleading is making me ill. You fucking sheep are pathetic

Collateral damage should be negligible.

suffering from radiation sickness(and death). There are worse ways to go(ebola is probably the only one I can think of), but whatever, its not like these are Americans who will die.

The US did it in the 60's. I have a missel silo in my back yard. NY

....I doubt it.....lets see, the Israeli's and US are bombing you and you want to drag the Turk and Saudi Air Forces into it too....how does that help?

They'd be smarter to roll over and take it and pretend they had a industrial accident then to ramp it up and have the rest of the countries infrastructure bombed back to the stone age also. If the gloves come off they will be the biggest losers no matter how you roll the dice.

and make it very, very costly. Just how much they can and will retaliate is hard to say. But given that Israel alone does not have the means to significantly downgrade Iran's nuclear program with its multiple sites hidden in North Korean style deep earth bunkers - it is almost certain that Iran will retaliate against American interest in the gulf. They will feel that they have to. Iran may not have equivalent technology. But they have enormous amounts of basic technology - much of it hidden in hostile and inapproachable terrain. Thus America is dragged into a long, costly and difficult campaign.

Needless to say, a sustained period of stratospheric oil price rising $200 to $300 per barrel will have devastating consequences for the global economy.