Whatever the administration does, it was right, apparently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o762HKxYMeA&eurl=

Iraq = Checkoslovakia?

When confronted with issues like acts of war, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and a new anit-Jew holocaust, what is Kevin's first reaction?

"How will it play in the elections. How can I leverage this for political gain?".

It is sick.

a new anit-Jew holocaust

All holocausts are bad, but I think the new anit-Jew ones are the worst.

When confronted with issues like acts of war, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and a new anit-Jew holocaust...

The only sick thing here is that the U.S. is planning, once again, to make an unprovoked attack on another country. Only this time, we have no military to do it with, and this time, the enemy is a lot stronger.

am, if you want to hit Iran, go down to the nearest recruiting office and sign up. Me, I think one pointless war is too many.

More then likely a tomahawk attack, say 40 THs. The SEALs have already reconed the place. Timed for late summer and the elections, why not.

BTW, in that music vid mentioned above, isn't Karl Rove on drums? He rocks?

They have to be talking about an air strike, right? What is the Army going to do, use Iraq as a secure supply base?

But even if we limit ourselves to an air strike, you know what's going to be coming across the Iran/Iraq border. This is seriously foolish and dangerous.

The SEALS have "reconed" the place? How do you know this?

You didn't expect spreading freedom to be a rose garden, did you?

The question is, are the Democrats able to talk about dealing with Iran, without bashing Bush??

The Dems don't seem to be able to address any issue without resorting to childish anti-Bush rants.

In the event of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iran, Democrats need to stock up on some items.
Anti-perspirants and tranqulizers for their colleagues across the aisle.
Pitchforks and torches to hand out to the voters who'll be wanting them.
Kevin, I just don't see a lot of public sentiment for starting a new war until we end the old one. Even the mindless belligerence of the American people has its limits.

Luckily, the Dems will decide to be "tough" by going along with anything the Republicans dream up. And the Republicans will mop the floor with them again.

Administration people might be just keeping the idea out there, to make the threat of a strike credible. I think we oughta just leave them alone, but if the US places such a high priority on keeping Iran nuke free, I guess it's okay stretegy.

And if the US does strike, it'll be closer to November, as Kevin says.

I agree with Frequency!

military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis.

Depends on what you mean by "end the crisis", I suppose. This new attack - will it pay for itself? Will the Iranian opposition greet us as liberators?

Even the mindless belligerence of the American people has its limits.

One would like to think so...

Kevin: "If Democrats don't start thinking about how they're going to respond to this, they're idiots."

I can tell you already, before they "don't start thinking" about a response, they ARE idiots. The Democrats have not shown any sign of life since the Bush Revolution started. They haven't a clue as to proceed in this new age in American politics. They're so inept as to lead me to believe their quiet acceptance of their new role as punching bag to the Republicans is no accident.

Frequency is on a roll!

"How will it play in the elections. How can I leverage this for political gain?".

This is some serious projection.

In a sane world, if this course of action were really necessary, it would be held up until after the elections, so that the country could deal with it as a whole.

Instead, it will happen right before the elections, precisely because it (will be seen to) help the Republicans.

So who is sick?

The Dems don't seem to be able to address any issue without resorting to childish anti-Bush rants.

Yeah, that sure isn't working, is it? I mean, just look at Bush's approval rating! The Dems cross him at their peril!

Where do I get me some of those cool glasses.Look at how hard the righties are working to make me life better.Look over there at how hard the dems are working to make my miserable.HeH hahahahhahahhahahha

There's nothing childish about an anti-Bush rant.

But onward: if we must bomb Iran, can we bomb it with hot potatoes? Think of the symbolism, man!

Taobhan,
I think you may be right. And although I wasn't very happy with his tactics in 2000 at the time, I'm beginning to think Nader might have been right all along. Tweedle Dee....

I don't think there will be an invasion, but there may be a strike at their nuke sites. Iran will probably not strike back in the expected manner, but with some other black type op or "terrorism". I don't think they will take it sitting down.

I also think that no other nations beside the brits will support this... Most of them have seen what a mess Iraq has become.

The military industrial complex like war... any war and they are perfectly happy to go high tech with little boots and lots of cruise... and new weapons systems. That's where the cash is.

Look for increased military procurements which the dems can't vote against fearing being branded as weak on national security.

This war, terrorism fear nexus is a no win situation for the dems. They can only win on corruption and social security...

Bush has managed to get his approval down to about 34% without any help from the dems.We don't have to do anything you guys are doing the hard work for us.Cheney 17% repubs. 22% Keep up the good work.

No doubt the administration will want to play the same song, new verse, but surely they'll have a harder time of it while all or most of our forces in Iraq are still stuck there.

Practically speaking, even if our war plan against Iran amounts to a bunch of air strikes, are we really prepared for whatever will come after that? Where is this confrontation going to lead? What's the endgame? Especially if we're not able to redeploy from Iraq, don't we need to find other forces (which we don't have)?

And is the administration really going to come up with persuasive answers to these questions? Democrats should be out front on the issue now, not denying the problem with Iran, but seriously asking these kinds of questions. That's what most of the public is going to want, given our experiences of the last few years. It's hard to believe many people (beyond a worn-down claque) are truly going to cheer on the next regional war while we're still pinned down fighting the last one.

How stupid is attacking Iran? Extremely stupid.

If we attack Iran, we will almost certainly lose the tacit cooperation of Shi'ite Iraq.

Right now we can't even handle the Sunni insurgency. If we lose the Shi'ites, it's game over in Iraq. As in helicopters lifting the last Americans out of the Green Zone just ahead of the insurgents' moving in.

Our 'enduring bases' ought to hold out a little longer, but mostly because they're away from population centers and have runways for C-130 cargo planes.

But all in all, bombing Iran is pretty damned stupid. And that's if the Iranians themselves do absolutely zilch to retaliate.

Sorry, only Jews are allowed holocausts. Everyone else is a Canaanite.

Freedom Phukher has described the probable Democratic response, unfortunately.

Americans have demonized the Iranians and the Bush regime is going to take advantage of this propagandized platitude by using military aggression. US military aggression will create another knee jerk reaction to support the troops and the war party. If this does occur, I will have very bad thoughts about my nation and its sins.

Where is this confrontation going to lead? What's the endgame?

That's for future presidents to decide.

The SEALS have "reconed" the place? How do you know this?

Not that Al knows his ass from, well, anything, but I assume that this has happened, or will happen.

I have the sinking feeling that the strategic geniuses in the White House have taken this lesson from the Iraq disaster: We sent in GROUND forces, the army. Musn't do that again. We already know that their "judgement" is shit. Just shit. So I think that they may be persuading themselves that the old-time nostrums of "surgical strikes" and special forces are just the ticket. We'll just drop some bombs and send in the commandos, and that will be that.

Now, have they thought about Iran using the Iraqi Shia as Hanoi used the Viet Cong? Have they thought about the economic repercussions if Iran decides to interdict Persian Gulf oil production and commerce? When I ask myself these questions, the only answer I get back is, have the fuckwits thought about ANYTHING?!?

Oh goody! Iran can become Bush's Cambodia.

Ah Democrats,,what will they do with this???

Yawn.

Nothing, they'll do nothing.

They invade for oil as well as any Republican.

Call me when the barrel runs dry...

And once more: If Democrats don't start thinking about how they're going to respond to this, they're idiots.

Kevin's not a Democrat now?

At any rate, yes, Democratic members of Congress are idiots (as are Republicans) if they haven't figured out that, if they want to have any credibility with the electorate, they'd better not give Bush a long leash on war again; if he seeks an authorization, he better have really bulletproof evidence calling for a declaration of war, and if he attacks without authorization and without a real, clear, immediate threat there ought to be a bill of impeachment on the floor of the House before he finishes the address to the nation announcing the attacks have begun.

For the Democrats, that's good partisan politics, sure; but for all members of Congress, its good government and good politics. Bush is the President, but he has shown in Iraq that he cannot be trusted, and the American people have come to recognize that. There is neither policy nor political upside for membesr to ignore that and allow themselves to be used again.

And that's just as true now as it is closer to the elections, and even after them.

Hoooraaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy! Fire! Fire! Kill! Kill! Bombs away!!!!!!!!! Viva la Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't wait for the bombings to start, lets celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They're so inept as to lead me to believe their quiet acceptance of their new role as punching bag to the Republicans is no accident.

It just occurred to me - the Dems are a fake party, like the team the Harlem Globetrotters used to beat up on every game. And what was that team called?

That's right, the Washington Senators!

Oh goody! Iran can become Bush's Cambodia.

Spot on.

Frequency Kenneth: I'm disappointed if you think the democrats have responded to Iraq by simply bashing Bush.

However, I think the best way to handle the elections is to ask a very pointed question: do you want the republicans handling Iran? The same guys who pushed the Iraq war so hard and screwed it up so badly? It's a competence issue.

If this report has any basis then we are watching a game of chicken.

Iran has been acting as if it had a lot of American hostages--U.S. troops stuck between angry Sunni and restive Shia--which effectively deter U.S. or U.S.-sponsored strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. They have been exploiting the position of U.S. troops to develop a longer-lasting nuclear deterrent.

This has been the great strategic catastrophe from the inept U.S. invasion of Iraq.

So now the U.S. is threatening to go ahead anyway. Is this a real threat, or is it a bluff? I am not sure that the Iranians care all that much. If we blow something up in Iran, Sadr's thugs will be taken entirely off the leash...not to create an Iranian puppet in Iraq (Arab antipathy towards Iran will emerge before that happens) but to create chaos, with American soldiers the witness and evidence of the chaos.

So that is the choice before us: allow the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, or forestall it, an deal with vengeance visited on our troops in Iraq.

We are so fucked.

If we attack Iran, we will almost certainly lose the tacit cooperation of Shi'ite Iraq.

This is correct, and it is the reason I think it will be a political disaster for Bush if he DOES choose to attack Iran.

What good does it do Bush and the Republicans to attack Iran, trying to get Americans to rally around the flag, and then have Iraq collapse into unspeakable and inalterable chaos in its immediate wake -- especially when it's so obvious that there was no URGENT need to attack Iran, and that it could have waited until Iraq was more stable (the hope still held to, and asserted desperately by Bush)?

How incompetent will Bush and the Republicans look at that point?

WHEN?

The question is: how many of those underwater missiles does Iran have - and how quickly can they be manufactured, and can the manufacturing facilities be wiped out via airstrikes.

Anyone recall the Falklands, Exocet missile strikes on British naval vessels? There are countermeasures for missiles that travel above the water.

craigie:

Actually, it was the Washington Generals. The Senators were a (mostly) inept baseball team - "first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League."

Nevertheless, point taken. Sigh.

Craigie, uh, sorry it is the Generals. Maybe just as apt.

And are we prepared for $200 per barrel oil after a tanker is sunk in the Strait of Hormuz and other Iranian diddling with oil markets. That'll play really well with the electorate.

Now, have they thought about Iran using the Iraqi Shia as Hanoi used the Viet Cong? Have they thought about the economic repercussions if Iran decides to interdict Persian Gulf oil production and commerce? When I ask myself these questions, the only answer I get back is, have the fuckwits thought about ANYTHING?!?

They've thought about the history of Bush's poll numbers, and the fact that the interruptions in the downward slide have been when the US has been attacked or has attacked.

So if they've decided to attack Iran, I guess that's the least bad thing we could expect from the all-politics no-policy crowd.

No Dems have a plan on Iran, because the situation doesn't mesh with their world view of dialogue and understanding. That is, except for Joe Lieberman, who some bloggers would like to kick out of the party.

Click this link to see the results of my own attempt to get those on the left to outline their own plan for Iran - and feel free to respond.

Hate to ruin a good joke, but the Globetrotters played the Washington Generals until 1995, and now ritually demolish the New York Nationals.

And once more: If Democrats don't start thinking about how they're going to respond to this, they're idiots.

They did, Kevin. They thought up a defense plan focused on conquering the Middle East to the exclusion of all else [including say, fighting anybody whose armed forces are stronger than Iraq], and otherwise, they're totally in favor of stomping Iran.

}:>

In essence, the Democratic strategy is to say they're Republicans but, you know, nice and the Republican strategy is to say they aren't Republican enough, which, WHOA, they aren't.

ash
['National health care will cure all ills, including stupidity.']

Here's the question Democrats should press as hard as they can when it comes to attacking Iran:

WHY NOW?

Everything about Bush attacking Iran at this point is bad.

It further destabilizes Iraq, and roils the oil market.

It does not give diplomacy a chance.

It is crassly political in its timing.

Everything that could be accomplished by such an attack could be accomplished at a later date.

Osama_Ben_Forgotten:

whether Iran bought a few Shkval from Russia or a former USSR entity, they almost certainly can't make them themselves.

the Shkval is a cavitating torpedo...thus allowing it to travel pretty darn fast. it is susceptible to antitorpedo countermeasures however.
in addition, like all torpedoes it has a very limited range...and like all torpedoes the best countermeasure is active ASW so the sub never gets close enough.

Here's an idea -- how about if the Dems ask an obvious question: Why is an Iranian bomb necessarily worse than a Pakistani one? Because as far as I can tell, the nuclear cat got out of the bag via Islamabad and (perhaps) Pyongyang.

Yeah, yeah, the Dems would face the usual howls of outrage from the usual quarters. Cry me a fucking river. If they persisted, maybe people would actually start to believe that they do take issues of foreign policy and grand strategy seriously. If they didn't turn tail at the first sign of opposition, they might actually be able to set the terms of the debate! Why, that would almost be like, what's it called.... Leadership!

K -
A good Liberal plan on Iran is:

A. A sane energy policy that reduces dependence on foreign oil.
B. A sane policy on Israel.
C. Better international cooperation with the EU to lean on Russia to get them to stop supporting Iran (which is why Iran has any international leverage at all at this point.)

Unfortunately, by now, 30 years of crap Conservative policy has painted us into a very unpleasant corner. One where we can't go running to the EU for help - because frankly, they're gunning for us as well as Russia - because they're ready to divvy-up the remaining oil supplies in the hemisphere for themselves, and they know that in the future, they're going to have to fight China for them: best get the US out of the way first by propping up Iran as a proxy to further weaken the US. (it worked in Iraq). Once the US is bankrupt, we'll no longer be a threat to EU dominance as the next superpower.

The Dem. position on Iran is that containment (and the threat of nuclear attack) worked with the Soviet Union, and that that should be our policy on Iran.

We should inform Iran and the world that if Iran develops and uses, or provides nuclear weapons to others that we will respond with unrestrained nuclear attack. Period.

No air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities can prevent them from ultimately gaining nuclear capability, and the prospect of all-out war between Iran and the US (with a halt in oil shipments from Persian Gulf states) is foolhardy.

We would also be jeopardizing our troops and our people in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Containment, not attack.

So the right is pleading with the Dems to give them a plan to get out of Iraq,They also want a plan to deal with Iran.Hey you guys are running the show.Lets see what you got righties where is your plan? That is what I thought.

Jesus fucking Christ Kevin. Do you never learn?

There is NOTHING a democrat could say that can be painted as way softer than their republican counterparts. Any posturing on this is just going to leave the voters with republican vs. republican-light, which is exactly what fucked us in 2002 and 2004.

The only answer is to not buy into the hype, and in fact to attack the hype. Iran is a minimum of 5 years away from a nuclear bomb. Nothing needs to be done right now, especially when there is no evidence they are pursuing a bomb. Rattling sabers strengthens the power of the fundementalist theocrats, and weakens the democracy movement.

If we let this debate slide onto another bullshit threat, we lose. There are at least a score of things that are a bigger threat to this country than Iran, including:

The Deficit
The National Debt
The Theory of Unitary Executive
The Cost of Medicare
The Cost of Medical Insurance
The Cost of Prescription Drugs
The Dependency on Foreign Oil
The Dependency on Foreign Labor
The Decline of Education
The Lack of Port and Industrial Security.
Global Warming
The Decline of Wages
Natural Disaster Preparedness
The Disconnection Between Citizens and their Government
Competing with China and India.
North Korean Nukes
Pakistani Nukes

and I could go on. Every single one of those pose a higher risk to the wellbeing of America and Americans. Iran isn't going to do shit with Nukes, even if they got them. We have years to work out a reasonable solution to the Iranian Nuclear problem.

If you, Kevin Drum, get sucked into this bullshit again, you fail as a democrat, an american, and frankly as a person. The answer to every hyperboilic argument and shrill raghead/brown person bashing is "There you go again. This is the exact same crap you gave us on Iraq, and no one is buying it. America is stronger than anything any external military attack can bring down. But we have far more threats to our way of life caused by failed right wing policies, and those will harm us in ways Osama Bin Laden could only dream of. This is the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and its time to start acting like it."

Don't fall for it again Kevin.

You don't roll out a new product in April. September is time to unveil the New, Improved War!

what is Kevin's first reaction?
"How will it play in the elections. How can I leverage this for political gain?".

And yet, that's exactly been the Bush administration mo since 9/11/2001. You didn't think it was sick then.

I love the quote "military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis." Bombing Iran as an "end"? That's the kind of thinking that has us in the mess we are in in Iraq.

We cannot prevent any sovereign nation that wants nuclear weapons from obtaining/developing them--short of all-out war. I don't know if there is a Democrat courageous enough to make the obvious case. And I don't know if nation that has twice voted for Bush is prepared to hear it.

Yeah, that sure isn't working, is it? I mean, just look at Bush's approval rating! The Dems cross him at their peril!

Heh! Good one.

Sure, the Washington Senators may have been inept, but their biggest, bestest fan, who never missed a game on the radio if she couldn't get there in person, was...Bess Truman!

My head is full of this stuff.

"We should inform Iran and the world that if Iran develops and uses, or provides nuclear weapons to others that we will respond with unrestrained nuclear attack. Period."

I'm with Jim on this one. As usual, Bush and his fellow geniuses have manuvered the US into yet another no-win situation. Unless they can somehow spirit away tons of Iranian uranium, Iran will be emboldened, not deterred, and thus military action is just going to make things worse.

This, of course, makes no difference to Bush and Co- making things worse is their specialty. What I am not looking forward to is Lieberman and (Ms.) Clinton (and half of the other Democrats in Congress) running to Bush's side in support when it happens.

That will be galling. It's already hard to keep from puking when I think about most every congressperson other than Feingold.

The cynical side of me says this is nothing but a political play by the administration...

Play up the Iranian threat, continue beat the war drums, continue to beat up the Democracts on national security through the mid-terms... but do nothing of substance.

Any other action risks a meltdown in Iraq, and potentially a direct and significant military response from Iran. While that response may do nominal damage to US forces, "nominal" is in the eye of the beholder.

Iran may not have the greatest military, but is not the ragtag mob it once was; Iran can afford much greater losses than the US forces in the region; can and probably would take the fight to those US forces, and not always in conventional form; while the US options in such a situation are limited.

Don't forget the Iranian Magic Secret Weapons of Death!

Has anyone else been having as much fun following stories like this as I have? Check some of the links to older stories on the sidebar.

Picture here.

"Due to its advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can detect it."

Bull. If this flying moose is radar proof, with that honking big propeller on top of it, then I'm Lamont Cranston.

"It can lift out of the water"

Always a plus in a flying boat.

This, and the other "weapons," have been the largest load of crap I have ever seen. I'm honestly starting to wonder about the Iranian nuclear program.

Why is an Iranian bomb necessarily worse than a Pakistani one?

Because Iran is several hundred miles nearer to Israel (and Saudi Arabia), (within Iranian ballistic missile and/or bomber range) and not otherwise engaged in warfare with a neighboring power (ie. a billion Indians).

And Pakistan is sitting on far less oil.

And Pakistan is not strategically situated so that it can easily choke 1/3 of the world's oil supply.

This is madness.

Here's a less-than-rosy scenario. Assume that Iran's new ultra-high-speed torpedo is operational if / when we attack.

1) They threaten tankers, thereby threatening to close the Gulf of Hormuz. The price of insuring the tankers goes way up, the price oil not far behind. Not good.

2) They sink a tanker, closing the Gulf. The price of oil goes heavenward, the world economy in the opposite direction. Much worse.

3) We patrol the Gulf and they sink a warship. Bush flies into a rage--remember Falluja?--and starts laying waste to Iran. This ignites all of Islam, and the world goes up in flames.

The probability of these actually happening? Unknown, but significantly greater than zero.

It is madness to risk any of the above, simple madness, and therefore, for this administration, entirely within the realm of possibility.

Why is an Iranian bomb necessarily worse than a Pakistani one?

I don't get this argument.

Why does an Iranian bomb have to be a bigger threat? Why isn't it sufficient that it's an ADDITIONAL threat?

Even assuming that either Pakistan OR Iran could be the source of a nuke used by terrorists, why allow the sources to multiply?

craigie: "It just occurred to me - the Dems are a fake party, like the team the Harlem Globetrotters used to beat up on every game. And what was that team called?"

If we're looking for a political party to lead us out of the wilderness the Republicans have led us into, my guess is that it won't be the Democrats. I think we have to understand that the DC world which both Republicans and Democrats inhabit is a separate universe disconnected from the rest of us. I'm coming to a realization that the political process we've been so proud of is as much of a sham as one in any banana republic.

We, the people, actually have little impact in Washington now and maybe we never have had as much as we thought we did. The next three years are crucial with regard to determining how true that may be. Besides, what good will it have done if the Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House and nothing changes but the appearance of things?

Richard Moore at cyberjournal.org may have seen this much earlier than any of the rest of us.

If indeed the Bushniks hit Iran, I would expect that the Iranian response would be to attack the American troops that are now bogged down in Iraq.
Iranian and Iraqi Shiites will unite against the common enemy (that's US, wingnuts.) We could lose a whole lot of troops if a consolidated attack is mounted.

hello, i would just like to add my two cents worth
regarding any possible future action on Iran by the
U.s.. it just never ceases to amaze me at how quickly
people jump on the bandwagon of criticizm and scorn
towards the United States when it comes to protecting
it'self and the whole world at large from such a
bastardly unstable rogue nation as Iran. would those
who are so cowardly quick to fault the U.S. for
attempting to terminate a resident evil that fully
exists within the goverment of Iran; rather they be
the dominant world power? if the answer to that
question is indeed yes, then the very same ones who
are so vocal and critical of the United States and
other free countries of the world who also subscribe
to the same doctrine as us, cannot ever hope to enjoy
the freedoms and way of life that currently exists on
a world level today, if Iran were to emerge as the
dominant world player. if you close your eyes to the
evil ambitions and aggressive stance adopted by Iran,
and allow your mind to be seduced by the trail of lies
that they have offered to the world at large over the
past 20 or so years, then you will surely be the
victim of your own deception and inablity,to clearly
see Iran for what she is; a threat of the highest
level; that if given free rein, could quite
conceivably bring civilization to it's knees and end
life as we all know it to be now. if you fail to heed
the warnings that currently begining to emerge
worldwide, then you are bound to suffer the absolute
horrible consequences that are sure to follow. now is
the time to make your voices heard; to clearly support
the cause of freedom in attempting to rid the world of
evil and it's unworthy cause. people, let your voices
be heard, let freedom ring!

"We should inform Iran and the world that if Iran develops and uses, or provides nuclear weapons to others that we will respond with unrestrained nuclear attack. Period."

Is this a credible threat? Let's say they attack just two targets, Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing about 2/3 of the population of Israel. 4 million dead or about to die. How many of you vote for an unrestrained nuclear attack on Iran--population 68 million? You really willing to kill 68 million? I'm not sure I am, and I'm a hawk.

Raw Story has an all-too-believable Iran war scenario,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Armageddon_0402.html

Sebastian,

I assume that Israel itself would take care of the retaliation in this case.

What if the cities hit were, say, NYC and Houston? I think the threat of relatiation is quite credible in this case. Ditto for any other nuclear power.

So we are really talking about what if Iran decided to use nukes on some non-nuclear power. Somehow I find that scenario very, very hard to believe. Who would they attack, and why?

Great...another war to pull Israeli chesnuts out of the fire

Message to Israel: try just a little to get along with ur neighbors and save us -the US- a lot of money and lives

I know US policy was outsourced to Tel Aviv a long time ago but does this really mean that we have to keep protecting Israel...the real aggressor in all of this?

We've already stopped Saddam for u & for what?

The ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD still hates u & r still intent on destroying Israel

Naturally, we're all supposed to blame the backward Muslims for this

However, some people r starting to think that U -Israelis- r the problem

That Israel, from the very beginning was a very bad idea that has cost the US far too much in treasure & international reputation

I mean...that is the reason we're hated all over the world

We keep backing the snottiest most obnoxious kid on the block...a spoiled rich bastard who deserves to get his ass kicked

Eventually...it will prove our undoing

Not that Israel gives a shit about that

In true Bush and Cheney fashion they will act out with nary a thought on the consequences.

This will bring about the Armageddon that Bush and Tom Delay and Pat Robertson so desire.

Too bad so many US troops will be stuck in the middle of the vice..between Iran and Syria and all tossed together with the large portion of Iran friendly Shiites in Iraq.

The US has had a heck of a run.

It began with a King George and so it shall end.

-GSD

As usual, this is a course of action which shows that nobody is thinking anything through...for starters, if we attack Iran militarily, we lose the country for at least a generation....even the pro-western Iranians.

Second, there is not really a logical argument for denying Iran nuclear weapons in the first place. Aside from the rather vague and widely ignored non-proliferation treaty, Iran can argue that since others countries have nukes, why can't they?

So the real question is whether or not preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is worth turning the entire country into another hotbed of anti-Americanism. My answer would be no.

It's simple: Reid submits a resolution that any new war requires a new war resolution. This means specifically Iran.

If the country is gonna start another war, it needs to be discussed with Congress, period.

sebastian, our efforts need to be so that Iran DOES NOT obtain nukes. I don't even want to think about what they may do and what our recourse may have to be if they ever did obtain them. Any one of those choice will not be good ones.

joemama, Are you saying Israel does not have a right to exist? If so why? They have carved out a fraction of the land available in the middle east to call home and are still willing to concede more land for the Palestinians, yet that is not good enough for the Palestinians. I don't see any of the muslim brotherhood offering land for a Palenstinian state, do you? I don't recall any Israeli suicide bombers going into the west bank and blowing up innocent Palestinians, do you? And you're worried that the Arabs hate us because of this? Who gives a fuck about them. They should be worried that we're beginning to not like them.

gary hatch -
"bastardly unstable rogue nation"?
Now, Iran under the Shah, post-1954, I can see as worthy of being considered illegitimate having been the foreign-sponsored overthrow of a democratically elected(non-islamist) government.
I may not like the current regime, or Khomeini's, but I have to admit they were home-grown. (if fertilized by external forces ...)

Unstable? Where'd you get that from? Ahmedinejad having been elected?(dammit, there's that damn democracy bit again!) Curious how Bush's Axis of Evil rhetoric and policy actions helped the hard-liners in Iran expand their electoral winnings, though, isn't it. Almost seems like shooting ourselves in the foot! But that would put the unstable thing on a different party to the equation, by my reckoning.

You can spare me the blather about the rogue nation bit - I realized it was bullshit the first time I heard the phrase just after the USSR collapsed. Just another marketing campaign to keep expanding the DoD and NSA budgets. Promoted by the Bush I DoS.

Fuck how Democrats respond. How do Americans respond to the cabal that has taken over our country?

The only response is to call it what it is. Bullshit!

If anybody falls for Bush's crap once again, they don't deserve to hold office. They don't deserve to have their opinions aired in the media. They can go clear brush down on dubya's farm if they want, but don't expect us to listen to you.

Look, this is not Bush coming off 90% approvals after 9-11. Bush is in the mid-30s after a disaster in Iraq, Katrina, Dubai ports, corruption scandals, and too many fucking years of total incompetence. The country's had enough. We just hope to make it to January 2009 without WWIII.

Bush invades Iran and we need to revolt.

GSD, that's the kind of optimism that wins elections.

It's simple: Reid submits a resolution that any new war requires a new war resolution. This means specifically Iran.

That is an excellent idea! It commits the Republicans to denying either a new war for Golden Boy as a fait acompli or denying that they're done attacking other countires.

I'm with tsbroz:
methinks Osama_Been_Forgotten and Pale Rider greatly overestimate Iran's capabilities:

for their naval capabilities see:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm

(though the 3 Kilo subs concern me...it is one of the quietest subs in the world)

for their army:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

for their "air force":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

the only real concern is their surface air defenses...they've made some worrisome purchases in that regard...(of course actually knowing how to operate them is another question altogther)

effective targeting of their nuclear sites (i.e. determining where they are) is also a concern.
their reaction within the region (and here) is also a concern.
but they're not sending some ground assault into Iraq no matter what lurid fantasies Pale Rider may have....

The entire world is united in this cause people, primarily because they saw that the US finally had the courage to do something about Iraq. We need to let Israel, Germany, France and the EU for the most part, lead on the Iran issue. They will if they know we have their back.

Here's the real deal. If we hit Iran, it CANNOT be restricted to an airstrike, regardless of what the Whitehouse or Pentagon wants. Iran can and will respond in any number of ways. The most assured response will be to work through their Shia buddies in Iraq to make the place a REAL shithole for our troops.

Beyond that, the Iranians have completely modern Russian weapons, like supersonic cruise missiles and the modern variant of the Squall supercavitation rocket torpedo (200+ knots underwater). The Aegis is not capable of dealing with the new supersonic variants of the Russkie cruise missiles.

If push comes to shove, the Iranians CAN hit a carrier or two, depending on how many are within 150 miles of Iran at the time. The Squall can take out subs, destroyers, or carriers and there is no viable defense against it.

Me thinks the Bushies and the top loons in the Pentagon are stuck on a Iraq mindset that assumes a weak military and poor response. They were right on the Iraq response initially but look how that turned out. We're in shit there NOW. Hitting Iran will make it a huge, steaming, insane pile of shit and really piss off the jihadists all over the ME.Iran isn't a weakling. They haven't been starved for money or supplies for a decade. Hell, they've recently spent a bundle acquiring a big wad of Russian cruise missiles and Squall rocket torpedos. This whole thing will go pearshaped almost immediately.

We have ourselves an entire Administration that needs to be hauled in front of a war crimes tribunal and charged with violations at Nuremburg.

I feel that we are reaching an inflection point when tbrosz is making fun of the administration's case for war.

The conventional wisdom is that attacking Iran would make things worse in Iraq. Has the administration concluded that nothing can be done to save Iraq so they might as well start a new war that would at least help them politically at home over a short period of time?

Jay?
Is "carved out" a synonym for "stole"?
And "concede" a synonym for "returned stolen property"?

I just want to be sure I understand your point.

I feel that we are reaching an inflection point when tbrosz is making fun of the administration's case for war.

I felt the same thing, but decided to withhold comment pending a follow-up tbrosz remark calling the Dems' case for invasion, if they wanted to invade, far lamer.

The entire world is united in this cause

No, the whole world is not united in "this cause". You're believing your own bullshit again, sonny.

Praedor:

I suggest you read my posts above:

the Schkval cavitation torpedo,like all torpedoes, has extremely limited range. effective asw against Iran's 3 Kilos is the obvious countermeasure.

as for Aegis not being able to counter supersonic cruise missiles, I'm not sure what you mean.
Aegis is a radar and fire control system.

the primary defense against supersonic cruise missiles is jamming of their guidance systems, not letting the launchers within range (like we're going to send a carrier into the Strait of Hormuz) and close point defense systems such as the Rolling Airframe Missile.

I felt the same thing, but decided to withhold comment pending a follow-up tbrosz remark calling the Dems' case for invasion, if they wanted to invade, far lamer.

The best jokes are the true ones. Brilliant.

Anyone who thinks Iran is a strategic threat to the US has had their genitals in Bush's mouth.

Iran may be a political threat to US hegemony in the region, but that is no reason to make war. The only reason to make war with Iran is to strengthen Republican's hold on power and enrich Republican constituents: big oil and defense contractors.

No shit-for-brains kengafuck. That land belongs to the Israeli's as much as it belongs to the your freinds the jihadists. By the way, when exactly was the last time Palestine was a state? Never.

Any attack on Iran would most likely result in a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and a conventional ballistic attack on major Saudi oil fields and refineries. I expect that Iran has told the Saudis as much.

It's not like the U.S. has embraced a policy of autonomous and preemptive attacks against perceived enemies or right wing reactionary religious bigotry. No nation could possibly justify the creation of a deterrent weapon in the face of that reality.

Oh. Sorry. Forgot the last 5 years happened. Hmmm--where's that moral high ground we had stashed for emergencies?

hey praefuck, interesting how you want to haul the US administration in for war crimes but gave Saddam a pass. That's real fucking brave of you.

And sed, you may not remember, with your selective recall and outrage, but in one of Chirac's most recent speech's he vociferously stated that Iran should not obtain nukes.

I can see it now. The talking heads on the pundit shows will be saying: "Nobody could have predicted that bombing Iran would have resulted in oil at 200 dollars a barrel".

Good luck and buy calls

Regards,

the Schkval cavitation torpedo,like all torpedoes, has extremely limited range. effective asw against Iran's 3 Kilos is the obvious countermeasure.

The early Squall was short-range and dumb, no guidance. The recent variants have loiter capability AND homing. They were designed partially as a defensive weapon - a sub launches a torpedo at you, you fire the Squall in the opposite direction, the attacking sub has to take instant action to seek to evade, breaking the guiding wires on their torpedo rendering IT dumb...with the real possibility of a hit by the Squall because NO sub can react well relative to a 200+knot missile.

I am aware of the Aegis. I am referring the Aegis guided missile destroyers for which the cruise missiles were designed as a counter against. They are not very effective against Mach 2.2+ cruise missiles at 100 meters. In any case, the Iranians are not going to be the "pushovers" the Iraqis were (see how well THAT'S going by the way? Those pushover Iraqis?).

shortstop:

I felt the same thing, but decided to withhold comment pending a follow-up tbrosz remark calling the Dems' case for invasion, if they wanted to invade, far lamer.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Democrats, as Kevin has pointed out, have no perceptible policy at all on Iran, much less a case for or against invasion.

one of Chirac's most recent speech's

Now you're paraphrasing Chirac? Mon Dieu!

Praedor:
I think what you mean is that standard Aegis guided SAMs are unlikely to be effective in stopping the Moskit. Which is correct. (How many the Iranians have and whether they can effectively target them is another matter altogether.) However, the Moskit has a 100-120 mile range. They could launch it from their 10 working patrol boats (if they could get within range)...or conceivably from launchers on land (if we sent ships within range). In actuality, we wouldn't.
But like I said, if a Moskit is launched within range and targeted correctly, the primary defense is the RAM.

As for the Schkval, a torpedo is a torpedo...its simply impossible to have a long range underwater...so long as we effectively track the Kilos its not an issue (as I noted above, the Kilos aren't the easiest thing to track...but we'll be using active, not passive, sonar).

unlike Iraq, I'm going to assume we're not talking about a land invasion.

Hey it's the only time Chirac made some sense. Give props where props are due.

Iran must be attacked. It's the only way we can save Iraq, and the world from imploding itself. I didn't vote for this War President for nothing. He is the only person who can save us, the born again Christian from the evil terrorists.

Iran must be attacked !!!!
God saves G. Bush!

If we hit Iran, it CANNOT be restricted to an airstrike, regardless of what the Whitehouse or Pentagon wants.

We know that, but I really don't think the Republicans give a rat's ass about what is really best militarily or politically.

Their primary objective is to create a state of literal corporate feudalism. Their original inspiration may have been Kuomintang China, but for the past few decades they've been working with oily medieval monarchies to transform them bodily into corporate states, and this has plainly left a favorable impression on gop executives.

"This, and the other "weapons," have been the largest load of crap I have ever seen. I'm honestly starting to wonder about the Iranian nuclear program."

Well a radar evading 'flying boat' is not a totally ridiculous idea, though probably 40 years out of date. The russians and the US exprimented with 'groud effect' aircraft that could carry heavy loads very fast by flying just above the water. I imagine modern radar systems would have no problem detecting such a craft, however.

On the other hand I definately think the iranian nuclear program is at least partly a made up threat. We hear these estimates that Iran might be "just two years" away from a nuclear bomb... it took the US about 4 years to build the first atomic bomb on earth 60 years ago. Two years is probably not a completely unreasonable time from a leader in some reasonably prosperous nation (like iran) saying "hey we ought to make a nuclear bomb" to thier first test detonation.

In other words every nation on earth with moderate technical skill and not currently in economic collapse is surely less than three years from a nuclear bomb so the statement is pretty meaningless.

Let Israel and the EU take care of this. The US should not lead on this and that may be the first time I have ever said that.

And the only way they can achieve that goal is by destroying the capacity of the central US government to do anything.

If push comes to shove, the Iranians CAN hit a carrier or two, depending on how many are within 150 miles of Iran at the time.

Yeah, but they'd have a better time taking out Gulf shipping, terminals, and oil facilities than doing that, and have a lot bigger effect on the US.

They aren't going to take out our military, so, while they will of course do what they can to defend against it, their most effective means of striking back is to find ways to make it costly for us to fight them, not necessarily to inflict the highest possible "military" cost.

jefff, Iran is not like "every other nation on earth". When you have a leader outwardly calling for the annihilation of another sovereign country, that pose a problem. Do ya think?

I don't think Iran HAS a 200mph torpedo. The Russians barely have one, and reportedly sunk one of their own subs with an accident with one.

In any case, the Iranians are not going to be the "pushovers" the Iraqis were (see how well THAT'S going by the way? Those pushover Iraqis?)

Iraq's conventional military was wiped out in a matter of days. If Iran takes us on using torpedoes, ships, submarines, and aircraft, they're going to go down in even less time.

More successful techniques would be sabotage attacks on oil tankers, or other insurgent-style attacks. They're not going to beat us, Israel, or anyone else with their regular military, much less mythical missiles, torpedoes, and aircraft.

I don't think war is the way to go at this point. There's too much information missing.

>I'm honestly starting to wonder about the Iranian nuclear program.

Tbrosz takes a step towards coming in from the cold. Here's something you already know, dude: governments lie. All of them. Iraq is lying about it's defensive capability, ours is lying about the threat it poses.

Sebastian: Nobody's setting off any atomic bombs unless Dick Cheney becomes President. If another one ever goes off 60 million dead will just be a start, so it isn't really a question I need to answer. It won't be a "decision" any sense of the word.

Gary Hatch: Your meds. USE THEM. And see if you can get your prescription bumped up.

jefff, Iran is not like "every other nation on earth". When you have a leader outwardly calling for the annihilation of another sovereign country, that pose a problem. Do ya think?

Not really, its the fairly typical rhetoric of impotent autocrats seeking to distract domestic attention from local discontents.

If push comes to shove, the Iranians CAN hit a carrier or two, depending on how many are within 150 miles of Iran at the time. Yeah, but they'd have a better time taking out Gulf shipping, terminals, and oil facilities than doing that, and have a lot bigger effect on the US.

I left out the Gulf shipping, which is THE big deal (>$100 barrel oil anyone?) but if they could nail a carrier, that would be big shit. The carriers are the crown jewels of the Navy. The psychological value of damaging or destroying one is worth taking a few shots at one. There's always more missiles left to deal with shipping.

tbrosz, I knew you wouldn't let craigie and me down. Attaboy!

One does have to wonder if Ahmadinejad is as bat-shit crazy as we've been led to believe and if they've got all these super cool military weapons that (some posters seem to believe are capable of what Iran's version of Baghdad Bob says they are) can beat American weapons systems why Iran hasn't launched an offensive war against US interests in the Gulf of Oman to spark the $100/barrel oil prices that would decimate the US economy.

(And yes, I'm comfortable with my run-on sentence, I was trying to encapsulate most of what is above.)

Any guesses from the Reality Based Community?

The truth is, our good ally Saudi Arabi is actively seeking nuclear weapons---probably trying to purchase them from Pakistan or North Korea.
The attack on Iran has nothing to do with protecting Jews from a holocaust.. it's all about keeping the Chinese from OUR oil.
Saudi Arabia is a good ally right now, so we don't care if they get nukes.
Needless to say, an attack on Iran will be a worse disaster than the Iraq war.
By the way, if we do attack Iran, it will probably be with nuclear weapons.
No, i'm not joking.k

Regular Gas is $2.72/gal today in Portland. Any guesses what it will be the day after the US bombs Iran's nuclear sites?

tbrosz on April 4, 2006 at 8:15 PM:

There's too much information missing.

Not that a lack of information or planning stopped Dubya from going into Iraq...I agree with the rest of your post, however.

I left out the Gulf shipping, which is THE big deal (>$100 barrel oil anyone?) but if they could nail a carrier, that would be big shit. The carriers are the crown jewels of the Navy. The psychological value of damaging or destroying one is worth taking a few shots at one. There's always more missiles left to deal with shipping.

Oh, yeah, if they get a remote chance, they'll probably take shots at any carriers they can -- they're too valuable of targets not to -- but that's not the way they'll most likely inflict the greatest cost to the US.

'tbrosz' posted:

"This, and the other 'weapons,' have been the largest load of crap I have ever seen."

Your cluelessness is repetitive.

They aired video of that sucker flying through the air on the evening news tonight.
.

Nice pop video! Anybody else remember the Tom Robinson Band. So this is the anti-TRB resurrection!

12-odd days ago UK Guardian headline: "Iran months away from bomb, says UK." In the article it turns out that the Foreign Office (Oh, by the way, nice of Condi to call the Minister a secretary!) is saying they haven't even got the technology yet but might have it soon, but an actual bomb "could take Iran several years. . . ."

Iran, even with the bomb, is no threat to the survival of the US. This administration took 50 years of successful foreign policy, turned it on its head, and, after 5 years of accumulating evidence has no intention of admitting that it has made any real mistakes. Noooo! We are going to have to wait 20 years to find out if GW was right! If we're all here.

The last time there was this period of disastrous strategic head-in-the-sand think it was called bunker mentality and ended 8th May, 1945. These guys have proven they are totally incompetent on foreign policy, waging war or even responding to a national emergency. (6 months since Katrina and no coordinated recovery plan for N.O. and area yet.)

Why is it that the Bushies think that if they see anything they don't like they have the right to tell others how to live, and, if they won't comply, it's war? And we are so consistent; China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan.

Oh, wait, whoops! We ARE trying to alienate the Pakistanis.

These guys really are the most dangerous the world has seen since '45. I mean it.

Look if Israel makes the strike and is backed up by the EU and the US, Iran will have to think twice about any retaliation.

OT, note to ordnance fans (Nathan, cragie):

• The Iranian Shkval-variant test launch was from a ship, not a sub. It's highly unlikely any are operational in any mode, or will be for some time. It would also be surprising if the Iranians had managed to get hold of the later version that is reported to have terminal homing (no one elas has).
• The Rolling Airframe Missile ASCM defense system, as of 2001 (block 0-1), had not been tested against SS-N-22-class threats because we didn't have anything to test against. If anyone has info on such tests since then, I'd appreciate a pointer.

if they've got all these super cool military weapons that (some posters seem to believe are capable of what Iran's version of Baghdad Bob says they are) can beat American weapons systems

They are not capable of defeating our military in a face off but they CAN do real harm, especially given that we are WAY overextended in Iraq and WAY overspent economically. The thing is, unlike any enemy we've dealt with in recent history (Iraq and, erm...Iraq), Iran has up-to-date, top-of-the-line Russkie hardware.

Don't blow off the Russian hardware. Some of it, their newer fighters, for instance, are better than any of our current hardware save the F-22 in the fighter arena. Against F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, and F-18s the new variants of the Migs and Suks well outclass them. The Iranians don't have them but my point is the Russian hardware is GOOD. What Iran DOES have are some SA-10s to go with their aged SA-2s, -3s, -4s, and -6s. The latter are no big deal. Ho-hum. But the SA-10. We have never gone up against one and when I was EWO on the B-52 in the 90s, the SA-10, -11, -12 were some scary shit.

The Russians have been steadily improving them in all ways. The Iranians have the -10. It is a very very good SAM. The cruise missiles have no analog in our arsenal. Ditto the Squall. The Russians have been steadily working to improve both. They have not just quit.

Look if Israel makes the strike and is backed up by the EU and the US, Iran will have to think twice about any retal