Do You Think We Attack Iran This Year?

[dipso]

The U.S, wont attack on it's own because it has already lost two in the region. Israel will attack though, because they know that goofy Bush will follow them in. Israel only has a limited amount of time before Obama is in and they know it.
Iran has an army and will defend itself. Iran also has a pact with Syria to defend eachother if the U.S. invades either, which is why we wont.
Iran also has Russia and China on their side if the U.S. attacks.

I don't know what the U.S. military leaders will do if Bush tells them to attack, some have said they would quit first.
The U.S. is getting it's arse kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way it can take on Iraq, Afghanistan,Iran,Syria, Russia and China.
Even monkey boy knows this and Cheney is no where to be found, probably in a hospital. We might be all right.

[snowman]

Excuse me, the US is getting its asss kicked!? What world do you live in? Things are going well in Iraq and would be better in Afgan if the UN were not mixed up in it.

First the Straight of Hormuz will not be closed for long, for any reason. The world does depend on shipments of oil thru it and consequently, the world will do everything necessary to insure those shipments go unhindered by Iran or anyone else. The US need not be involved because everyone else will be on it right away.

Obama is a communist, not a pacifist, and as far as I know not opposed to use force for achieving his ends. A newly elected Obama (God I hope not), will be even more rash than GW because he is setting a foundation to govern and cannot be seen as weak. I say Obama is MORE likely to nuke the Iranians than GW is. In any case Iran loses big.

I predict that Iran will be dealt with decisively before GW leaves office, enough to influence the election and guarantee that McCain will win.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by legion

We should be sending weapons and insurgents into the country (payback's a b!tch).

According to some recent news reports, we are. And US commandos too.

Do a google.

[red-beard]

If McCain wins, no. If Obama wins, yes. Remember what Bush Sr. left for Billy boy?

[RWebb]

or just read Seymour Hersh's article in the NYT

he thinks Bush is trying to use Sp. Ops to forment revolt and/or trouble that might make a strike seem more reasonable. Of course, that's in addition to target locating.

I doubt that we send in many ground troops or plan an occupation. While the US Army and Marines are pretty well tied down, that does NOT apply to USAF and Naval assets.

If you want to know what's is likely to happen any time any where, just follow the logistics train.

Right now, it looks like we are well prepared for very serious strikes on Iran. Thousands if not hundreds of targets...

One real question right now is "how deep is deep enough?" We may find out soon.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by snowman

Excuse me, the US is getting its asss kicked!? What world do you live in? Things are going well in Iraq and would be better in Afgan if the UN were not mixed up in it.
1.7 trillion and your standard of winning is "well and if". If you had 1,7 trillion invested into a 6 year poker game and someone asked you how you are doing? I am doing well on this table and if that guy would stop messing with me I would do better on that one. I would not say you are winning.
First the Straight of Hormuz will not be closed for long, for any reason. The world does depend on shipments of oil thru it and consequently, the world will do everything necessary to insure those shipments go unhindered by Iran or anyone else. The US need not be involved because everyone else will be on it right away.
The way to keep those shipments un-hindered is to stop the U.S. from doing something stupid that will get them closed. You think they are happy with the prices of oil, No. Do you not think they will protect their interests in the area.
Obama is a communist, not a pacifist, and as far as I know not opposed to use force for achieving his ends. A newly elected Obama (God I hope not), will be even more rash than GW because he is setting a foundation to govern and cannot be seen as weak. I say Obama is MORE likely to nuke the Iranians than GW is. In any case Iran loses big. just more republican paranoia.

I predict that Iran will be dealt with decisively before GW leaves office, enough to influence the election and guarantee that McCain will win.

Do you mean as decisively as afghanistan or iraq. Starting world war 3 will not guarantee McCain a victory. It will do the opposite, somebody smart will be needed to oversee things and that is not McCain.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by RWebb

or just read Seymour Hersh's article in the NYT

he thinks Bush is trying to use Sp. Ops to forment revolt and/or trouble that might make a strike seem more reasonable. Of course, that's in addition to target locating.

I doubt that we send in many ground troops or plan an occupation. While the US Army and Marines are pretty well tied down, that does NOT apply to USAF and Naval assets.

If you want to know what's is likely to happen any time any where, just follow the logistics train.

Right now, it looks like we are well prepared for very serious strikes on Iran. Thousands if not hundreds of targets...

One real question right now is "how deep is deep enough?" We may find out soon.

I agree on all points with this assessment. Except for the conspiracy theory part that Hirsch advanced.

[1967 R50/2]

Remember the classic blunders fromPrincess Bride?: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia...." We we are involved in two...wanna try for a hat trick?

The fact of the matter is that there is no need for a military strike against Iran. Despite being an oil rich country, much of the refining is done out of the country. US gas companies are actually a major supplier to Iran.

Restricting their fuel supply would be a major blow vs. a military strike which may or may not work, or may result in an environmental catastrophe. Not to mention getting the US into another potential middle eastern debacle.

It has been I'manutjobs fear for some time that sanctions would extend to gasoline, (which is already rationed...but not very effectively) and shut the country down, and likely him too.

There have already been riots due to gasoline rationing. Google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Gas_Rationing_Plan_in_Iran

[legion]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

Remember the Princess Bride "Never get involved in a land war in Asia...." We we are involved in two...wanna try for a hat trick?

The fact of the matter is that there is no need for a military strike against Iran. Despite being an oil rich country, muchof the refining is done out of the country. US gas companies are actually a major supplier to Iran.

Restricting their fuel supply would be a major blow vs. a military strike which may or may not work, or may result in an environmental catastrophe. Not to mention getting the US into another potential middle eastern debacle.

It has been I'manutjobs fear for some time that sanctions would extend to gasoline, (which is already rationed...but not very effectively) and shut the country down, and likely him too.

There have already been riots due to gasoline rationing. Google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Gas_Rationing_Plan_in_Iran

That is a very insightful post with very useful information.

Now we have a lever. Time to use it.

[snowman]

First the Straight of Hormuz will not be closed for long, for any reason. The world does depend on shipments of oil thru it and consequently, the world will do everything necessary to insure those shipments go unhindered by Iran or anyone else. The US need not be involved because everyone else will be on it right away.

"The way to keep those shipments un-hindered is to stop the U.S. from doing something stupid that will get them closed. You think they are happy with the prices of oil, No. Do you not think they will protect their interests in the area."

Originally Posted by dipso

Do you me....gs and that is not McCain.

And you point is???? Which part of what I said do you disagree with?

[RWebb]

How are we going to restrict their fuel supply if other nations won't help? Or do you assume they will?

remember, air strikes (likely with insertion/extraction) of small no.s of ground troops do not have to completely wipe out their nuke capability -- that just has to set it back, say, 10 years. then we lather/rinse/repeat until it becomes clear...

not advocating that -- not really sure what to do with them

certainly we won't win the Miss Congeniality contest if we do that, but we probably are out of the running this year anyway

[snowman]

If Iran stops the transit of oil it will only hurt itself. Also every country in the world will be there to make certain that "their" supply gets thru. consequently no blockage of the straight.

As to the US, very little of OUR oil comes from the mid east now, so what will a shutoff really do to us? It may hurt a little for a bit, but it will open up soon, real soon, because when we get serious, and we will get VERY serious, we will get our oil, no holds barred, no matter what, nothing can get in our way. Don't beleive it, just watch.

Lets put this whole situation in perspective. Take the most powerful nation in the world. Shut off their oil. Just what do you think will happen? It won't take long for the rest of the world to realize why we are the most powerful nation in the world. If they don't like it?! WTF can they do about it? Nothing, absolutely Nothing.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally Posted by RWebb

How are we going to restrict their fuel supply if other nations won't help? Or do you assume they will?

All sanctions so far have been done with international cooperation, so it could be done. Although quite frankly, anything would be tough sell right now. We have so many sanctions on Iran, there is not much more to sanction. They've become a new Cuba...which is bad.

50 Years of sanctions and embargo against Cuba did nothing but give Castro a reason to rally the people behind him. If we had opened our economy up...Who knows? Right now Havana might be Las Vegas south.

Originally Posted by RWebb

remember, air strikes (likely with insertion/extraction) of small no.s of ground troops do not have to completely wipe out their nuke capability -- that just has to set it back, say, 10 years. then we lather/rinse/repeat until it becomes clear...not advocating that

Glad you are not advocating that, because they would likely see it as an out and out act of war. Even those Iranians who don't support Imanutjob, probably would support him would if we bombed targets in their country.

Their response:
1. Turn off the oil, causing an international crisis.
2. Mess in Iraq. Until now they have been messing around in a covert way in Iraq, we really, really, don't need them getting overt.

They don't need to beat us militarily either. An open was with Iran would cause enough economic and politcal hardship in the US, to make any president's term miserable.

[snowman]

Iran CAN'T shut off the oil. If they do they starve!

[the]

Even a monkey learns, after being delivered a painful shock/burn, to not touch that button again.

Bush's warrin' days are over.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Iran can continue to just pipe oil (via pipeline) to China. If memory serves, they signed a HUGE exclusive rights deal with the Chinese about two years ago. Probably more than enough to sustain them for a good while revenue-wise.

Do you honestly think the U.S. or Israelis would be stupid enough to blow up the pipeline to China and risk dragging a billion pissed off Chinese into this? Doubt it.

Point is - Iran is NOT Iraq. Any action in Iran other than an "instant" cruise missile & stealth airstrike would be met with pretty heavy resistance. ANY action will have pretty significant ramificaitons including a polarization of certain aspects of the Muslim world against Israel and the U.S. (nothin' new there I suppose, but certain groups that are "on the edge" could likely fall over into full-blown violent extremists). There will undoubtedly be retaliation against U.S. troops in Iraq (perhaps Iran would use it as an excuse for full-blown invasion?) There will DEFINITELY be an impact on oil prices.

Yes, Iran cannot "cut off its nose to spite its face" by shutting off the tap forever, but it can most certainly redistribute its product to countries like China and India and say "F.U." to the entire west - and probably still do pretty well for itself.

[ZAMIRZ]

A few things to keep in mind from someone who travels to Iran on a fairly regular basis.

1. The vast majority of the educated population (read: ones with money) are pro-western, don't really give a f*ck about the government and are constantly at odds with the komiteh (moral police).

2. Iran will most likely close the strait of Hormuz using mines, which will blow a hole in the side of a tanker or destroyer about as quickly as easily as you can bite into a Haagen Daaz ice cream bar, and will take months, if not years to properly clear and dispose of.

3. Propaganda machine will be in full force in Iran if Israel attacks, much more so than before, which can create a very dangerous situation, reviving the largely uneducated children of the villagers and countryside population into Bassijis.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Have to agree. Fully 100% of the Persian folks I've met in my life have been extremely nice, kind and friendly people. It'd be a shame to have this turn into a quarrel with the Iranian people somehow.

However, SOMEONE in that country has to be supporting the mullahs and the Ayatollah. The ones here in the west certainly aren't representative of this population, but SOMEONE is either supporting them or condoning them by sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

[Tobra]

Every single Persian woman I have ever met has been pretty much smokin' hot, what is that all about?

[island_dude]

"Every single Persian woman I have ever met has been pretty much smokin' hot, what is that all about? "

True enough. My wife is a good example. Very high maintenance and very volatile -- I have compared notes with lots of others, it seems pretty much universal.