US prepares battlefield in Iran

[roomy]

Blow the fuckers up, the World will soon get over it.

 

[Charles_Main]

What makes you think that merely an air attack, which would apparently have to include tactical nukes, would have any less blowback effect economically? Or even geopolitically?

Just because you assume it would include nukes does not make it so bud.

 

[Paulie]

Just because you assume it would include nukes does not make it so bud.

You do realize that an air assault on any of Iran's supposed nuke facilities, specifically Natanz, would require something more than a conventional strike?

I mean, isn't that supposed to be the contingency plan? Take out their supposed abilities to develop nuclear weapons? You don't really think we'd just bomb key government and financial targets and leave them with a governmental mess and most likely mass chaos, do you? That would be pretty counter-productive. They either invade Iraq-style and change the regime, or they nuke the supposed facilities and be done with it. Otherwise, there's nothing any type of conventional bombing alone is going to accomplish in the long run.

 

[Charles_Main]

No, but there are key targets that could be hit with conventional weapons that would set back their Nuke programs for years. Not everything can be placed far underground.

 

[Paulie]

No, but there are key targets that could be hit with conventional weapons that would set back their Nuke programs for years. Not everything can be placed far underground.

If you're Iran, and you really are building nuke weapons, you don't have anything important above ground.

There's also the fact that there's still no proof that they're even currently building nuclear weapons. Our own intelligence community just recently dismissed Iran's claim that it has long range missile capabilities, after Iran tested a missile or 3.

Iran knows they're probably about to be our next victim, the writing's on the wall. They're doing nothing more than posturing at this point, which you'd have to expect from a nation that knows its days are probably numbered.

This brings me back to my original question though. Even if we conventionally bomb the shit out of them, you don't think that's going to cause some major economic and geopolitical blowback? Let's not forget about a few of their top trade partners, in China and Russia.

 

[JimH52]

Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.

Jessie Helms from the grave?

 

[AllieBaba]

Time for another wake up call for zealots in the middle east.

Frigging idiots.

 

[Charles_Main]

If you're Iran, and you really are building nuke weapons, you don't have anything important above ground.

There's also the fact that there's still no proof that they're even currently building nuclear weapons. Our own intelligence community just recently dismissed Iran's claim that it has long range missile capabilities, after Iran tested a missile or 3.

Iran knows they're probably about to be our next victim, the writing's on the wall. They're doing nothing more than posturing at this point, which you'd have to expect from a nation that knows its days are probably numbered.

This brings me back to my original question though. Even if we conventionally bomb the shit out of them, you don't think that's going to cause some major economic and geopolitical blowback? Let's not forget about a few of their top trade partners, in China and Russia.

Some things simply can't be placed underground.

as far as your question, I never said bombing would not cause economic troubles, I said it would not be as bad as an invasion. What I do not want to see is US troops on the ground in Iran. I hope we can agree at least on that point.

 

[JimH52]

bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE

the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives. loss on 401k's, $40 you might have made aint what it used to be. seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.

how much did you make?

ps. gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.

Actually I sold real estate and bush's tax cuts saved me about $5,000.

 

[Article 15]

Using nukes to cripple Iran's capability to develop nukes ...

What irony ...

And Paulitics is right. Any kind of a strike on Iran would leave a huge footprint geopolitically and on the world economy ...

It would be grossly irresponsible of the US to do so ...

 

[JimH52]

But would it also be grossly irresponsible for the US to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with the expressed intent to destroy Israel? Not an easy position, eh?

 

[Article 15]

Well yes, if it were the U.S.' responsibility to do so ...

However, if Israel feels so threatened and believes that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on them even when they face mutual destruction if the do so then I would say the ball is in Israel's court and not ours ....

 

[Charles_Main]

Well yes, if it were the U.S.' responsibility to do so ...

However, if Israel feels so threatened and believes that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on them even when they face mutual destruction if the do so then I would say the ball is in Israel's court and not ours ....

I actually have to agree. I think Israel is fully capable of dealing with Iran, with continued funding from us of course

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Iran's never going to attack Israel, and anything Ahmadinejad says is pretty much just populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (what a suprise!). Nobody in Iran wants to be obliterated (what a surprise!), and that's gonna pretty much going to keep them from doing something rash, unless, of course, someone or something wounds the animal and causes it to attack.

And then on the other hand, the US is never going to attack Iran, and anything Bush says is pretty much populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (he kinda already backed off from that one, what a suprise, people don't like war!). What nobody in the media says is that the US can't do much about it militarily. They could air-strike it, sure. But that's about it. Just look at a map and look at the chaos. It'd be a battle field some 2,700,000 sq kilometers large, it'd would double the population at stake (Iran actually has even more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined), and it'd be a ridiculous mess. The most ridiculous thing by far is the fact that back in the 70s the US was just extatic over Iran's fledgling nuclear program- because of course the great and beloved Reza Pahlavi was in charge (courtesy of Britain & the US), but now?! Iran + Nuclear energy?! UNTHINKABLE! Only "our" client states can have nuclear power!

 

[JimH52]

Iran's never going to attack Israel, and anything Ahmadinejad says is pretty much just populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (what a suprise!). Nobody in Iran wants to be obliterated (what a surprise!), and that's gonna pretty much going to keep them from doing something rash, unless, of course, someone or something wounds the animal and causes it to attack.

And then on the other hand, the US is never going to attack Iran, and anything Bush says is pretty much populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (he kinda already backed off from that one, what a suprise, people don't like war!). What nobody in the media says is that the US can't do much about it militarily. They could air-strike it, sure. But that's about it. Just look at a map and look at the chaos. It'd be a battle field some 2,700,000 sq kilometers large, it'd would double the population at stake (Iran actually has even more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined), and it'd be a ridiculous mess. The most ridiculous thing by far is the fact that back in the 70s the US was just extatic over Iran's fledgling nuclear program- because of course the great and beloved Reza Pahlavi was in charge (courtesy of Britain & the US), but now?! Iran + Nuclear energy?! UNTHINKABLE! Only "our" client states can have nuclear power!

Interesting. I do hope you are right. I feel confident that neither Obama not McCain would make such a foolish decision. Now, bush I ain't so sure.

 

[Article 15]

Interesting. I do hope you are right. I feel confident that neither Obama not McCain would make such a foolish decision. Now, bush I ain't so sure.

I disagree. The possibility that he may attack Iran is pretty much the one thing that really worries me about McCain.

Lieberman, his right hand man, during Petraeus' testimony literally said as a lead in to a question, "I want to go into Iran." Admittedly, he was talking about sending in troops from the Iraq front to go after the Qods forces in Iran but still the idea is still there.

Here's the link with a video.

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Lieberman: Can't We Invade Iran Yet?

The dude (Lieberman) is a hawk of the highest order. McCain isn't too far behind.

No thanks.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, the American far-right has surprised us again and again, but McCain actually launching a war against Iran would be only a little different from Ahmedinejad firing a nuke into israel- the US wouldn't get obliterated, but it'd precipitate a very rapid decline in every field- 0 soft power, 0 world standing, 0 ability to deploy anywhere else, unsurmountable strain on the economy, total chaos in the middle east, an enormous rise in terrorism. It'd be brutal.