IRAN: It's Getting Serious!

[Lux]

Senators: Military last option on Iran
Lawmakers stress gravity of nuclear standoff, push sanctions

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Republican and Democratic U.S. lawmakers said Sunday there must be major immediate diplomatic action on Iran's nuclear activities, and that the option of military action cannot be taken off the table.

"This is the most grave situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror," Sen. John McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/15/iran.congress/

Well it's about time our "politicians" woke up to reality!

[dougmyers]

They are just looking for something else to blame on Bush before he leaves office.

[Javabear]

Any opinions on who could strike Iran without causing complete turmoil in the region?

Isreal = Complete uprising of the Arab people
US = Could be seen as colonial action
UK = Same as US action
France = They would surrender first
Germany = I doubt they would
Russia = In bed with Iran on the nukes
China = Wants Iranian oil and gas

Who's left?

[JJLL]

I like your answer to France :) LOL

[dougmyers]

Any opinions on who could strike Iran without causing complete turmoil in the region?

Isreal = Complete uprising of the Arab people
US = Could be seen as colonial action
UK = Same as US action
France = They would surrender first
Germany = I doubt they would
Russia = In bed with Iran on the nukes
China = Wants Iranian oil and gas

Who's left?
==========================

I suspect no one would be left any place on Earth if that starts.

[Lux]

Any opinions on who could strike Iran without causing complete turmoil in the region?

Isreal = Complete uprising of the Arab people
US = Could be seen as colonial action
UK = Same as US action
France = They would surrender first
Germany = I doubt they would
Russia = In bed with Iran on the nukes
China = Wants Iranian oil and gas

Who's left?

Iraq :shhh:

It's all part of "the master plan" ;)

[blondi]

and ,amen !!

[dougmyers]

Think you guys are taking the Iran thing maybe a little to lightly. Remember, they are nuclear capable. This is not a good thing.
=================

Not me I fear it would be the end of what now is world wide!:crying:

[Lux]

Think you guys are taking the Iran thing maybe a little to lightly. Remember, they are nuclear capable. This is not a good thing.
Can I come up with a more serious title than:

IRAN: It's Getting Serious!

;)

They aren't nuclear capable, yet.

But to your point, it's the yet part that we're concerned about and so is our Senate.

[tattatu]

of war, like the Soviet Union after Afghanistan, will destabilize this conservative government's economic policies shaped by idealism/greed but inefficient and cant compete with free market economies.

Iranians should learn from India's nuclear program -- its not that great -- India's dirty little secret is an embarrassment to the industry. Instead, India now has the fourth largest wind energy program in the world. Hopefully it will be able to sustain itself by 2031, that is when it is predicted the Chinese will reach the same level of consumption the US will have (lets hope we dont have 3 cars for every 4 people as we do now).

As the Rial weakens, the relatively stable Dinar/Dollar will dominate the region, compared to Syria and Iran. Shortages will continue developing in those countries. Fuel in Iran, just like Iraq, is smuggled to India and Pakistan. If fuel prices go up (they will), Iran will need to take steps to trim their deficit or incur massive inflation.

Presently, Iran claims to have the largest militia in the world ( ~6 milliion), but not much else. It would probably be a war similiar to the one being fought in Iraq -- light resistance, but long term occupation (7-10 years). I cant see how the world would support such an action. Sanctions would only consolidate power for this government and Iranians are also dependent on food imports -- so lots of starving women and children. (dont forget 3.5 x the land area and 3 x the population of Iraq) The cost of rebuilding would be astronomical.

On the other hand give it two more years, and the people will be either pleading for a new government or taking steps to remove this one. Ahmadinejad already had one assassination attempt and things are worsening in Beluchistan (tribes who want independence from Iran that supported SH). SH used Beluchis against the Iranians and during his invasion of Kuwait - they speak Beluchi.

[Lux]

They are breaking seals on uranium enrichment equipment as we speak. They don't give a rat's butt about UN protocol etc.. I bet my dinar stash that they already have a few nukes laying around. The uranium enrchment equipment was working full scale at one time..........

I really can't disagree with that. They speak loud enough as if they already had it. Either that, or they are plain stupid.

What will Russia and China do?

[Lux]

of war, like the Soviet Union after Afghanistan, will destabilize this conservative government's economic policies shaped by idealism/greed but inefficient and cant compete with free market economies.

Iranians should learn from India's nuclear program -- its not that great -- India's dirty little secret is an embarrassment to the industry. Instead, India now has the fourth largest wind energy program in the world. Hopefully it will be able to sustain itself by 2031, that is when it is predicted the Chinese will reach the same level of consumption the US will have (lets hope we dont have 3 cars for every 4 people as we do now).

As the Rial weakens, the relatively stable Dinar/Dollar will dominate the region, compared to Syria and Iran. Shortages will continue developing in those countries. Fuel in Iran, just like Iraq, is smuggled to India and Pakistan. If fuel prices go up (they will), Iran will need to take steps to trim their deficit or incur massive inflation.

Presently, Iran claims to have the largest militia in the world ( ~6 milliion), but not much else. It would probably be a war similiar to the one being fought in Iraq -- light resistance, but long term occupation (7-10 years). I cant see how the world would support such an action. Sanctions would only consolidate power for this government and Iranians are also dependent on food imports -- so lots of starving women and children. (dont forget 3.5 x the land area and 3 x the population of Iraq) The cost of rebuilding would be astronomical.

On the other hand give it two more years, and the people will be either pleading for a new government or taking steps to remove this one. Ahmadinejad already had one assassination attempt and things are worsening in Beluchistan (tribes who want independence from Iran that supported SH). SH used Beluchis against the Iranians and during his invasion of Kuwait - they speak Beluchi.

Thanks tattatu - nice synopsis. The answer looks complex.

[tattatu]

the Iranian units included horses, trucks, motorcycles. They also used children in their so-called militias and might have succeeded in beating SH after 8 years of violent conflict had it not been for US intervention. So I can understand why there would be some hostility toward the US. I have only spoken with some survivors who fled afterward to Pakistan (Jewish Iranians), but there should be some accounts of it on the internet. SH was not beyond modifying mustard gas, using heavy metals to increase the lethality. Iran has some of the best universities in the region too, its a terrible shame.

[Jerry]

I really can't disagree with that. They speak loud enough as if they already had it. Either that, or they are plain stupid.

What will Russia and China do?

Moscow's proposal to Tehran still stands

04/ 01/ 2006

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov.) Statements by Tehran officials that Russia has made no "concrete" proposals on uranium enrichment are little more than subterfuge, and a rather uncouth at that.

The other day the Russian Embassy in Tehran handed the Iranians an official note confirming that the earlier Russian proposal to Iran to set up a joint Russian-Iranian uranium enrichment venture in Russia remained in effect. It seems that here could be no more concrete wording.

What is next? This coming January Iran is to have a very delicate discussion with the EU on its nuclear program. Tehran has a lot to prove in regaining the world community's trust. The Russian solution would be very handy to steer the dialog into constructive channels. It is in Tehran's best interest to confirm that the Russian proposal concerning joint uranium enrichment was phrased clearly and succinctly. Moscow is entitled to a more specific answer from Tehran on whether or not they are agreeable to that option. Practicalities of the concept may always be discussed at a meeting of interested parties.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060104/42848181.html

In regards to "TRUST" Tehran has openly expressed thier reslove in "Wiping Israel off the face of the earth"... They are now persuing the stregenth of that resolve.

[MunnyBaggs]

Any opinions on who could strike Iran without causing complete turmoil in the region?

Isreal = Complete uprising of the Arab people
US = Could be seen as colonial action
UK = Same as US action
France = They would surrender first
Germany = I doubt they would
Russia = In bed with Iran on the nukes
China = Wants Iranian oil and gas

Who's left?


Iran........

[tattatu]

I am sure everyone including the Iranians are wondering what they are up to. This is Russian diplomacy. They appear to have good intentions but it is almost always read as unclear or fuzzy by foreigners (using cold war as an example) -- Russian rhetoric tends to spiral outward with incomplete or off-the-mark ideas (at least this is what I read from the article. The big problem is that the Iranians are not clear in what they want from the world, that is if they were to abandon their nuclear program.

Most probably think that at best this could only be temporary -- we would probably see the same crisis recur in five years -- part of their master energy plan. In the end, no one wants to negotiate with a blackmailer. Better off waiting for their economy to implode.

[Lux]

Russia and China caught on the Iranian issue

Part of President Vladimir Putin’s policy for revitalising Russia’s economy has been to emphasise development of sectors where it still has strengths. Alongside natural resources and defence, nuclear technology is one of the few where Russia has a competitive advantage, controlling about a third of the world nuclear fuel market.

Along with Iran, Russia has been constructing nuclear power plants in India and China, and supplying fuel to Soviet-designed power plants in former Soviet republics and former eastern European satellites such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. Exports of nuclear technology amount to about $3.5bn (€2.9bn, £2bn) a year.

In that respect, Iran represents a big opportunity, and has a long historical trading relationship with Russia. The Soviet Union was quick to replace the US and France as Iran’s main supplier of nuclear technology after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3c6c9564-85e7-11da-bee0-0000779e2340.html

[tattatu]

Russia and China have Iran wrapped up in their little pocket. No one seems too concerned about Chinese nuclear subs or their 80 km long benzene spill (which they tried to keep a secret from everyone :rolleye03 ) only affected 5 million people.

[millionairetobe71]

MUNNYBAGS!!!!


YOU ARE BACK!!!! YOU ARE BACK!!!! YOU ARE BACK!!!!!

YYEEEAAAHHHH

__________________________________________________ _____________

In my opinion, US do clearly understand the reality of the threats from Iran, however, I don't believe that is in the best interest right now to attack Iran, that may come from other countries, like Israel. Remember, it was Israel who destroyed their previous attempt to build the nuclear reactor in the 80's. US can not get involved right now on another military conflict nonetheless with an arab nation. It proved too costly to us. And they are not your typical enemy. They are worst that the Vietcongs during Vietnam. Also put in perspective that Iran is capable of chemical weapons, and due to their nature of being extremist idealogical fundamentalists people, they will use their NBC arsenal against us without hesitation. Then we may see mass killing of US soldiers like we have never seen since WWW I, II....and I don't hink when want to get there...of course, anything can happen, Israel could attack first, surgical aristrikes from different bases around Iran, then followed by wave of ground troops composed of multinational troops?? Who knows....it could be...or continue with a international economic stronghold until the regime collapses.....they only have oil, that's it....so..we will see what is going to happen...

[tattatu]

currently building a 20,000 ton enclosure built to last for 100 years. Largest man-made enclosure in the world. Impossible to estimate the lives affected by that disaster. Hmmm ... Iranians with Russian nuclear technology what an interesting idea. Which way are the winds blowing?

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=11710839&navID=13&lID=2

[JASONTL]

Tattatu, thanks for your posts, always enjoy reading them, great insight.

This could be the start of the next World War. I have just spent the better part of two hours reading articles from around the world. It doesn't look good.
Iran has everyone by the nads right now, and they know it. Anything we do or, anyone else does, will have some serious consequences on the world economy. Unfortuantly, that is exactly what the Mullahs want. They want to start the apocolypse, armegeddon, what ever you want to call it. It will bring forth the 12th Imam, which the Mullahs are drooling for. Russia, EU, and China, will not do anything. They may say they will, but they won't. They are too dependent on Iran. If anyone starts anything, Iran will attack our forces in Iraq. Then the Sunnis will join the dominant Shiites, and Iran, in the attempt to overthrow the West which they all want. Hopefully, this is worst case scenario, or is it? It may be time for me to get the heck out of here.

Disclaimer: This is all just my very humble pessimistic opinion.

[tattatu]

still fishing for the Hidden Imam. Their not about to start a Jihad with him. I think the Chinese stole him.

[tattatu]

CNN banned from Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060116/tv_nm/media_iran_cnn_dc

CNN's simultaneous translation of Ahmadinejad's lengthy news conference on Saturday included the phrase "the use of nuclear weapons is Iran's right."

In fact, what the Iranian president said was that "Iran has the right to nuclear energy," the official IRNA news agency reported. CNN later clarified in an apology on Sunday night.

[Javabear]

Iran........

Iran attacking Iran? I know where there's a few thousand Iranians here in Iraq that would be happy to go and attack the current regime in Iran if we would give them their weapons back.

[bloptaptap]

us could do it, there prob is a plan out there , we do airstrikes what can iran do?

[CashMan]

Well it's not what Iran could do if we do air strikes. The question is what kind of treaties does Iran have with China and Russia. (Even so I don't believe Russia would ever go to war with us. I think we would be parters. Just my opinion.) Let say China has a treaty with Iran and if for some reason Iran get's attacked. Under their treaty would China come and defend Iran. That is the scenario I believe everyone is concerned about. Just my take on things. Especially when China is so thirsty for oil. If I'm not mistaken I believe World War 1 started that way. Or kind of.:)

[ISX_TIME]

http://www.investorsiraq.com/politics/13878-israel-needs-deal-iran.html

[R-MAN]

my next post is in 3 parts cause its very long.but it is very informative andtells the reasons WHY things are.feel free to pass it on to the people who dont believe in this war..

[R-MAN]

Here is an article from a California lawyer that seems to present the "Big
Picture"" in just the right manner. It is something all Americans should
read, particularly high school and college students and others who wonder
how we got to where we are.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and
hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more
than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America
for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions
of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and
Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress
unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which
had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its
German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler
intended to set up a Thousand-Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally;
it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had
long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States
over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and
Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia,
and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any
size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much
or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent
the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of
arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians,
Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they
needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already
under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its
military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII
there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because
they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because
they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and
damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600
million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of
Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium
was overrun by Hitler -- actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it
was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels
into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been
holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses
and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was
saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of
thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with
later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the
verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

[R-MAN]

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years
until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and
Moscow, 90-percent of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but
also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his
entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have
won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941,
instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as
a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not
have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little
pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe
would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and
without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had
to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then,
and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I
say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey
things. And we are at another one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and
may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing
so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at
least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid
for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food"
program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his
son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they
believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form
of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe,
then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed,
enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel,
and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not
a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its
Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win -- the
Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the
Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies,
the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC
dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC
dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs?
You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the
Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe
that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with
the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then
the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate
and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the
Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic
terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it no-where.
And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for
the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we
did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved
in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting
the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or
was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of
probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic
terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys
there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else.
We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which
will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and
an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East
for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now
know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans,
and Russians were selling them arms -- we have found more than a million
tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone,
why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed
from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and
education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with
a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the
Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America
joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17-year war -- and was followed
by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those
countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . a 27-year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full
year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars.
WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000
still missing in action.

(The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly
what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,800 American lives, which
is roughly one-half of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.) But
the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably
greater -- a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by
60--minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes
bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the
Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope
it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries,
Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the
Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us
for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes
they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad
is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism
until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It
will not go away if we ignore it.

[R-MAN]

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have
an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help
modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the
clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the
barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in
this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the
barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or
somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not
fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four
options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be
as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran
claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle
East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in
America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is
more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated
France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more
dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you
oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or
grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the
Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and
concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this
war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural
clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and
civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists
always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. Communism, and before that
Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German
Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun,
nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI),
Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War
that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but
itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western
Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more
years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of
Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global
dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes three scary
claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops. We went with the troops the US
military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked
for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than
we expected. The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice --
we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying
to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah
in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile
-- but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the
patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning. This is a specious argument.
It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been
easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla
war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will
be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security. This
too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and
provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough
to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own
military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is
happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over
100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than
200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning
operational control for security back to Iraq.
It will take time. It will not go without any hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little
history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down
in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century
fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten-year occupation, and
the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the
death of more than 50-million people, maybe more than 100-million people,
depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more
than 4,000 killed-in-action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of
the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US
averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of
WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by
representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal
freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement,
by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor
human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for
Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US
population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by
twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in
mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another
country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan,
North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the
most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins,
wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the
liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad
wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get
it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.
Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school,
college and university as it contains information about the American past
that is very meaningful TODAY -- history about America that very likely is
completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied
the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when
it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are
prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in
causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~`

Somewhere a "True Believer" is training to kill you. He is training with
minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The
only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't
worry about what workout to do -- his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs
end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned
about "how hard it is;" he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home
at 17:00, he is home. He knows only "The Cause."

[tattatu]

then Iran cutting its oil production would mean world price of oil probably going to $100/bbl. An attack on Iran would be condemned by the entire world, including Iraq and probably result in higher oil prices. Then no American will be safe overseas -- better to stay home and buy an "American" bicycle.

[Lux]

R-MAN
That is truly one of the best posts I've ever read anywhere.

I will do my best to pass this onto to others or simply bring them here to read it.

Thanks!

[panhead]

Great post R-Man, hope it clarifies the situation for some people.

[R-MAN]

thx guys..i learned some history too from this one !!!!!!!!

[Tyreds Tale]

then Iran cutting its oil production would mean world price of oil probably going to $100/bbl. An attack on Iran would be condemned by the entire world, including Iraq and probably result in higher oil prices. Then no American will be safe overseas -- better to stay home and buy an "American" bicycle.

I think you are right Tattatu, any attack by US or Israel would lead to something much greater than the usual protests. The Iraqi government would turn against US presence, fueling insurgency agains our troops, similar situations in Afganistan and Pakistan, and more young muslims would be persuaded to join jihadists.

We need to use our brains on this one, before it is too late. We need operations like on 24! Ok, maybe without the relationships which take up half the show. :drunk:

No really, we have people in Iran who know what is being planned and ways to disrupt it. Also putting diplomatic pressures and united condemnation of their behavior, spelling out consequences including the benefits from the WTO, IMF, UN, and other organizations. Also getting Saudi and Iraq on our side now will prevent any great oil price pressures from Iran's temper-tantrums.

Hey, it is working with N. Korea! Well, kinda...

[tattatu]

this is one way the US might involve itself -- protecting international sea lanes -- Iran has been attempting to enforce its claim to territorial waters in the Persian Gulf between Abadan and Basra. Iran has missile bases guarding the straits -- its not likely they would be successful but things might get hot if the Iranians started firing missiles at the tankers or laying mines. Persian Gulf is wall-to-wall ships, day and night. Its a little bit like playing chicken -- Iran wont act unless they can get world support and condemnation of the US -- for instance downing of that Iranian jet, back in 1990? To me this is a crisis designed by Ahmedinejad to hasten the removal of US forces from Iraq by provoking a military response.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_12315.shtml

Iran would not be intimidated and cling to its legitimate rights of pursuing peaceful nuclear projects, Danesh-Jafari stressed.

Although not yet articulated by Iranian officials, observers believe Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz and obstruct global oil exports from the Persian Gulf in addition to curtailing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, an option already approved by Iran's parliament.

[stayfrosty5]

Unless we can somehow drop a nuke on Iran's nuclear facilities and fake it to have been some kind of malfunction in their own equipment (impossible), then we need to sit on our thumbs on this one. Continue to denounce their gov't and continue with talks to try to stall but that is all we can/should do. An attack on Iran would be the beginning of the end for mankind as we know it. Just a feeling.

frosty

[MunnyBaggs]

Iran attacking Iran? I know where there's a few thousand Iranians here in Iraq that would be happy to go and attack the current regime in Iran if we would give them their weapons back.

I've already heard the word "revolution" being tossed around by some of the hawk right wing talking heads. Iran does have somewhat of a history of this although it has been a few decades since it has happened. Bottom line is if Iran does not capitulate the method we will use is to fire up a true Iranian insurgency. Nothing much will happen though through November of 06. Elections first and then you'll see the heat build up towards Iran.

[MunnyBaggs]

http://tinyurl.com/7dwup

[tattatu]

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/world/96/04/26/iran.html

The incident took place in the final weeks of the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq. On the day of the shoot-down, U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf were in action against Iranian gunboats. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter.

[tattatu]

From China with Love, the Iranians upgraded.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm

n July 2002 a conventional-arms sale triggered sanctions on several Chinese companies. Beijing had transfered high-speed catamaran missile patrol boats to Iran. The C-14 patrol boats are outfitted with anti-ship cruise missiles. Short-range anti-ship missiles for the patrol boats also were sold from China to Iran in January 2002. The catamaran and anti-ship missile sales were first disclosed by The Washington Times in May 2002, shortly after the first of the new C-14 patrol boats was observed by US military intelligence at an Iranian port. The high-speed gunboat can carry up to eight C-701 anti-ship cruise missiles, and usually have one gun. There have also been reports of Iran possesing another type of anti-ship system. Up to 16 Sunburst anti-ship missile systems were traded in the early 1990's from the Ukraine. That changes the rules.

[tattatu]

National Threat Initiative gives a good profile of Iranian capability. Lots changed in 20 years.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1808.html

This is cute, no wonder China/Russia have been staying quiet.
17 March 2005
The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office states that 18 Kh-55 missiles were smuggled to Iran and China during the Kuchma administration. The probe into the illegal sales has resulted in the indictment or arrest of at least six arms dealers. Member of Parliament Omelchenko asserts that a Russian, Oleg Orlov, and a Ukrainian known as E.V. Shilenko arranged the deal in 2000 by using a "fake contract and end-user certificate" and exported the missiles through Russia's national arms dealer and an arm of Ukraine's weapons exporting agency, UkrSpetsEksport. President Yushchenko has called for an investigation into the matter.
--"U.S. Catches China Transferring WMD Tech to Iran," World Tribune.com, 18 March 2005.

31 March 2005
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko confirms that Iran acquired nuclear-capable missiles from Ukraine under the previous administration. He adds that the missiles were delivered unarmed using a forged contract listing Russia as the final destination. Oleksandr Turchinov, Ukraine's top security official, says that the investigation into the affair is complete and that the court is to announce its ruling "in a few days."
--"Report: Iran Has Bought Nuclear-Capable Missiles From Ukraine," Haaretz, 1 April 2005; "Security Chief Says Missile Smuggling Case Solved," Kyiv Post, 1 April 2005.

6 April 2005
A Washington Times report reveals that Iran paid $49.5 million for the six Kh-55 missiles it received in an air shipment from Ukraine between May and June 2001. The shipments had been misleadingly identified as oil-pipeline material.
--Bill Gertz, "Missiles Sold to China and Iran," Washington Times, 6 April 2005.

10 April 2005
Iranian government spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi denies that Iran concluded any missile deal such as that recently alleged by Ukrainian officials.
--"Iran Denies Ukraine Delivered Cruise Missiles," Agence France-Presse, 11 April 2005.

[tattatu]

oil production. I think this is called active diplomacy. Noticed too that Iran will be opening foreign offices in Iraq (has an office in Tehran), Syria, and Kuwait. So now round 2 has started.

Regardless of UN sanctions, this had to be coming. The Iranians are counting on Europe, US, Russia, and China being divided on how to respond.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_12338.shtml

1/15/06
Iran yesterday said it wanted the OPEC oil cartel to drop production in the first quarter of 2006, which is likely to put more pressure on prices.
Iran is OPEC's second biggest producer.

Iran earlier said it was not scared of being hauled before the UN Security Council and warned any sanctions over its disputed nuclear program could cause an unexpected rise in oil prices.

World oil users were bracing for the possibility of prices hitting $US100-a-barrel if Iran turns off its exports.

[tattatu]

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_12343.shtml

Timing is everything :lmao:
Spain keen to expand tourist exchange with Iran
Jan 16, 2006

General Manager of Spain's National Tourist Office (Turespania) Amparo Fernandez has called for increased tourist exchanges with Iran, given Iran's cultural and tourist attractions.

"Iran is not merely an attractive destination for European tourists because of its cultural features, but is one of the world's most economical tourist centers in view of the fact that fares for domestic flights are among the cheapest.

Just dont go flying over the Persian Gulf.

[tattatu]

http://www.bayonetgear.com/nextarmy/0vic.txt

This is a good text and discussion on the Vincennes leading up to the incident. It involved the Iranian patrol boats harrassing a German merchantship by circling it, then engaging an SH60B sent out by the Vincennes to investigate -- the Vincennes then used its 5" guns on the patrol boats. These were the ROE after the Stark had been hit by an Iraqi missile (May). I was in Karachi at the time watching peaceful student demonstrations and playing cricket with the street kids. There was only one Chinese restaurant there, most of my colleagues came down with the cholera, but not me for some reason.

In 1986, almost 100 ships had been attacked in the Persian Gulf. And in 1987, up until the Stark was hit, about 30 ships had been attacked. Iranians had Silkworm missiles at the narrowest part of the Strait (about 50 miles across). The Vincennes weapons systems while nice for the open ocean proved not as effective in close quarters.

[ramis]

Is Iran a threat to US?

Mind it, Iraq was supposed to be a threat to US with weapons of mass destruction (Some call it weapons of mass distraction). Iraq had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Oops!! There were none....

We must think independendly, thats how God created us to be:D

[BigE]

anyone with common military sense know that if you have to go to Iraq first as you then have Iran Surrounded (Afgan on East, Iraq on West, Navy on South, and Romania on North) especially when both are radical islamic led countries.

yes it was quite a shame, clinton started the whole lie about iraq having WMD, he was the first to say it and the first not to do anything about osama for 8 years.......so doing my math ........bush has 4 more years to do something. If clinton would have done something, 3000 americans WOULD BE ALIVE and 2000 soldiers would still be home watching the NFL playoffs. PERIOD.
if you in IRAN an you don't think you want Iran to be changed, then pick a gun and FIGHT OUR YOUNG MEN when they come to call, or better yet , get under a desk until it's all over.......We must think independendly, thats how God created us to be.:D

[panhead]

Is Iran a threat to US?

Mind it, Iraq was supposed to be a threat to US with weapons of mass destruction (Some call it weapons of mass distraction). Iraq had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Oops!! There were none....

We must think independendly, thats how God created us to be:D


What do you think Sadam gassed a half million Kurds with?
Are Silkworm missles considered WMD?
In most states a shotgun is considered a weapon of mass destruction...so whats you definition?

[tattatu]

could Iran blockade the Straits of Hormuz by threatening violence? Yes, companies and insurers wont allow their ships to enter into harm's way, especially given the aggressive nature of Iran's small, but lethal Navy. Iranian submarines with the capability of laying mines is another scenario that would disrupt shipping. Not saying that it will happen, but a good possibility if the situation escalated, since this occurred before and the Iranians achieved some strategic success. Dont forget the possibility of another airliner downing -- there is very little time to react and lots of opportunity to make mistakes.

[farquar]

Chirac to use nukes against 'terrorist' states Brest, France: France said it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack or used weapons of mass destruction against it. http://www.gulfnews.com/world/France/10012953.html

[JASONTL]

Chirac to use nukes against 'terrorist' states Brest, France: France said it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack or used weapons of mass destruction against it. http://www.gulfnews.com/world/France/10012953.html


I was trying to figure out who Chirac is talking about and found this. Two weeks old but...

...reduced deliveries by as much as 35 percent and may result in supply cuts for some customers.

Supplies to Italy fell by 24 percent in the 24 hours ended at 6 a.m. today, according to Eni SpA , Italy's biggest oil and gas supplier. Gaz de France, the world's fourth-largest gas buyer, said deliveries from Russia have been reduced by between 25 and 30 percent. France gets about a quarter of its gas from Russia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&refer=top_world_news&sid=ayEzPH4v38HY

[JASONTL]

There has been little reaction from the Arab press, but the London-based al-Hayat said Chirac's speech was too "general" to be directed at Syria or Iran, two nations accused by Washington and much of the EU as supporting terrorist formations.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.255415368&par=0

[cloaked]

I like your answer to France :) LOL

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html
:lmao:

[Tyreds Tale]

Iraqi cleric al-Sadr says his militia would defend Iran if it's attacked

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The Iraqi cleric who once led two uprisings against U.S. forces said Sunday that his militia would help defend Iran if it is attacked, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Muqtada al-Sadr, speaking on the sidelines of a meeting with the top Iranian nuclear negotiator, said his Mahdi Army was formed to defend Islam.

"If neighbouring Islamic countries, including Iran, become the target of attacks, we will support them," al-Sadr was quoted as saying. "The Mahdi Army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam."

The comments could be seen as a message that Tehran has allies who could make things difficult for U.S. forces in the region if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/01/22/1406780-ap.html

[goldraker]

What the US and Iraqi Governments need to do. Is take Mr. al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army and show them the highway leading to Iran. BY BY!

[red42]

It seems like we had this discussion a few years ago,

they just changed one letter a "q" to a "n"

sorry had to say it,

ok fire away!

[goldraker]

Ok wise guy, that was good!!!!!!!!!!!!