Does America have the funding to fight another long battle? The U.S dollar isn't what it used to be. Not sure if that has much to do with it.

It has a WHOLE lot to do with it imo... We don't have the funding to finance the mess in Iraq, much less taking on any more "decades long debacles". IMO, the USSR eventually collapsed from the weight of it's military spending (amongst other things), and they weren't the first NOR the last superpower to do so. China would just LOVE for us to do something so stupid :(

Just use their oil.

Just like Iraq :(?

No for real. Not just in the minds of whacked out lefties.

An interesting counter opinion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080627/cm_uc_crpbux/op_336518;_ylt=Ang0ejwA.EoDI.db7prOCnT8B2YD

I imagine China would prefer stability and no wars. Then we have lots of $$ to buy their stuff, and peace allows them to seek more raw materials to import.

"pretty heavy resistance" in Iran if we attack. I'm not sure what that means specifically. Our military is not quite powerful but also evolves much more rapidly than the militaries of other nations. That does not mean we should act like the Romans, but if we attack Iran, they will be completely plastered, except for unconventional warfare techniques. A massive invasion is really out of the question, much less an occupation. But, a mostly aerial attack is something else. We already have thousand of cruise missiles in theater. The new ones have a loiter capability and can be targeted in real time. They can be fired from surface ships AND subs. Two carrier groups means we can bomb 24/7 even w/o any USAF. Not that USAF will allow themselves to be left out of the fun.

What exactly are the Iranians going to do about it? They have no real air force, and even the 2nd best air force on the planet is not a match. Do they want to fire missiles? We have trace-back and can hit even mobile launchers in seconds. Do they want to light up a radar? HARM...

Mining is a very clear Act of War in Int'l Law. It would be a big mistake and Bush would surely seize it right away.

OTOH, the pro-westernism of some Iranians (mostly the young) will likely fade pretty quickly if attacked. Nobody likes that.


I would not get too excited about military capability however. Like a martial art, is best used when it is not used at all. A US attack on Iran would be a very serious issue. If bush does it, and he very well may, we will all have to point and say "Hey we got rid of him! We are peaceful now." Then, after 4 to 8 years of peaceful diplomacy, we can shift back to a warlike president in 2016 or so.

We need to check with our Chinese overlords.

I find myself in agreement with this analysis for the most part.

If denied the ability to fight back against ground forces, Iran has little real option other than to A) Invade Iraq(utter suicide) or B) sit back and take their drubbing like good little Islamists.

They already C) Sponsor terrorism and D) Undermine us in Iraq to the best of their ability.

apparently D is untrue -- Hirsch and others with xlnt access to the high end at State and the Pentagon, say they do only a little in that respect, could do much more, and realize that they are best served by a stable Iraq (not stable the way we want it no doubt).

I know a guy in Intel working for SOCOM(actually, he just retired in the last year) that does not agree with Hirsch's assessment.

Could they do more? Surely(so i will concede point D to some extent). But that does not mean their efforts have not been extensive and comprehensive, either.

What would realistically be accomplished by bombing Iran?

Whats the situation in Iran, the rest of the Middle East, Europe and USA in say five years, if:

A: You bomb Iran?

B: You don´t?


I am contemplating consequences that perhaps are not currently directly under our noses.

That's easy, Livi. Right now the Iranian people are controled by a brutal dictatorship and consistently poll as the most pro-American population in the entire mideast. If we don't bomb them, in five years they'll still be American-loving civilians suffering under a brutal dictator. In oter words, nothing will have changed. That's not progress.

We have to do something to help the people. The only tool we have available is mass bombing because we're bogged down, I mean busy rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and we don't have an invasion force to spare. So if we bomb the snot out of them, probably killing a bunch of them in the collateral damage, in five years they'll still be ruled by a brutal dictatorship, because the bombing alone can't change the regime without ground troops. But after the bombing the population would be unified in their supprt of the brutal dictatorship and would be willingly accepting the privations caused by their government as the sacrifice necessary to wreak revenge on the infidels.

Obviously it's a no-brainer. You bomb the snot out of them, act surprised when the survivors act peeved, and lecture the world on how you're bringing democracy to the middle east. Not doing anything is admitting defeat. Do you seriously think we're better of doing nothing than trying the only tool we have at our disposal? You're not one of those appeasers, are you? Say....Didn't Joe McCarthy have a file on your parents? Aren't you from one of those Yeropean countries? If you didn't do anything wrong why am I asking you so many questions? Your name ends with a vowel, too. Hmmmm, I think we're just going to have to mark you down as a subversive. What kind of a car do you drive? Bet it's an import. Figures.

I understood what you said as" we can cause the straight to be closed and the world will help clear it".
I am saying "the world will stop us from getting it closed BEFORE they have to help clear it'.
Israel can attack if they want, but I don't even know if they can count on the U.S. anymore we are so weakened by incompetence.

Just like the "progress" we've achieved in Iraq? Puleeze :(. And the idea of Iran invading Iraq is laughable...they are aligning and getting as friendly as two "best buddies" can be now that Sadaam is out of the picture...why shouldn't they be? They go WAY back... WE have meddled enough in a situation that WE truly don't understand imo, and the result is not (nor will continue to be) very pretty for some time to come.

All right, Keith. You're on the list too. What is this place, some hotbed of subversion? I'll offer the chance for re-education while you still can. Repeat after me three times: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going perfectly accoring to plan...The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going perfectly accoring to plan...The wars in Iraq and Iran are going perfectly accoring to plan...

You have now said it three times. If you say something three times, it is so. The DC Circuit agrees with me, so it must be true: "See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) ("I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."). PARHAT v. GATES , ____F.3d____ (DC Cir. 2008). At page 29 of the slip opinion, if you're looking.

LOL, it's getting like that isn't it. Don't worry, Australia is in the same boat.

You can bet Bush is not doing it to help the Iranian people. He will do it to stop or set back their nuke program.

Livi, I do NOT want the Iranians to have nukes. That would be a major accomplishment AFAIAC. I always view force as a very very last resort. Of course, what I think, what other Americans think, what Congress thinks, or what the Int'l community thinks matters not a whit to Bush.

Now why would a guy in Minn. quote the DC Circuit??

Atty with federal practice, bring a lot of admin. law cases??

Now why would a guy in Minn. quote the DC Circuit??

Atty with federal practice, bring a lot of admin. law cases??