Attacking Iran...The consequences.

[Bullypulpit]

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

 

[8236]

Well, if Iraq had never been invaded in the first place, then the WMD lie wrt Iraq could have been used as a WMD truth wrt Iran and strikes on their nuclear facilities could have been made. If only it hadn't been for the Bush-Hussein family fued....

All is not lost though! The US could just get Israel to do the dirty work as was the case in the 1983 strike on the Iraqi reactor facility.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, if Iraq had never been invaded in the first place, then the WMD lie wrt Iraq could have been used as a WMD truth wrt Iran and strikes on their nuclear facilities could have been made. If only it hadn't been for the Bush-Hussein family fued....

All is not lost though! The US could just get Israel to do the dirty work as was the case in the 1983 strike on the Iraqi reactor facility.

As with Iraq, no reliable case has been made for Iran possessing WMD's. Similarly, there is no reliable case for military action against Iran, never mind that they have not attacked the US.

As for Israel doing "the dirty work", you would see Israel, and the rest of the Middle East go up in flames if that were to happen.

 

[red states rule]

No reliable case has been made for Iraq possessing WMD's?


So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.

What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?

How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.

Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?

What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record, October 8, 2002

Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/051128
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Hagin was born in Tampa, Florida, and now resides in Dallas, Texas. He is 38, single, loves outdoors, and dreams of having a political column nationally syndicated. Doug has been writing political columns for 7 years, and now his column runs regularly in American Daily, Republican News Daily, the Starr Journal, the Intellectual Conservative, Hour Eleven, the Reality Check, Opinion Editorials, the Ellis County Press, and the Daley News Post along with others. Visit Doug's website at http://doughagin.tripod.com/

 

[8236]

Fact is though that Iraq had none and was secretly known to have none by Bush & co. (the ridiculing of Hans Blix looks pretty pathetic in hindsight).
Thats what i always used to whine on about on this board - the sheer stupidity of invading Iraq when it was clear to everyone on my side of the pond that it was all lies, damn lies and politicians.

However, we do and did know Iran is enriching - they even admit it, (that's a 'known known' i think ), and we also know that once they get them no-one will dare attack.

 

[red states rule]

Fact is though that Iraq had none and was secretly known to have none by Bush & co. (the ridiculing of Hans Blix looks pretty pathetic in hindsight).
Thats what i always used to whine on about on this board - the sheer stupidity of invading Iraq when it was clear to everyone on my side of the pond that it was all lies, damn lies and politicians.

However, we do and did know Iran is enriching - they even admit it, (that's a 'known known' i think ), and we also know that once they get them no-one will dare attack.

Please keep spinning what the Dems said. Here are more statements from the Dems.....


Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

 

[8236]

I'm not talking about the Dems or the Reps or Americans in general. I'm talking about the common man/women in Europe! In America you were all lied to so effectively that everyone bought the 'Iraq has wmds' message.
Over here over 80% didn't buy it - it seems the only one who did was Tony Blair - and i think secretly he was just playing poodle.
The point is that now Iraq has been invaded Iran can just get on and do wtf it wants, knowing full well that the US has neither the resources nor the stomach to do anything.

 

[CSM]

The point is that now Iraq has been invaded Iran can just get on and do wtf it wants, knowing full well that the US has neither the resources nor the stomach to do anything.

You are absolutely correct. Therefore, let's just wait until it becomes Europe's problem. I cannot fathom why Europeans view this as a US-only issue...oh wait, yes I can. Europe has depended on the US to bail it out since the WW I.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration advocate attacking Iran, though the military option is always on the table.

IMO, the UN and the rest of the Western world (minus the US) should handle Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine and any other global issue you care to mention. After all, they seem to have all the answers and they sure do not like the way the US does things.

 

[theHawk]

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

So whats your solution? Do nothing and let Iran obtain nuclear weapons someday?

 

[dilloduck]

So whats your solution? Do nothing and let Iran obtain nuclear weapons someday?

That appears to be the plan since I havent' heard another one. We just allow all our enemies to build up thier arsenals while we sit on our asses and watch. It's sorta like international affirmative action. Every country deserves a nuke. Thank goodness everyone will be too reasonable to use one !

We will have to get the international bankers take on it all first.

 

[8236]

You are absolutely correct. Therefore, let's just wait until it becomes Europe's problem. I cannot fathom why Europeans view this as a US-only issue...oh wait, yes I can. Europe has depended on the US to bail it out since the WW I.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration advocate attacking Iran, though the military option is always on the table.

IMO, the UN and the rest of the Western world (minus the US) should handle Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine and any other global issue you care to mention. After all, they seem to have all the answers and they sure do not like the way the US does things.

I don't recall anyone criticise the US for invading Afghanistan - thats when the US had the whole world on its side, but yes, u r correct I guess I should have said the west, and not the US wrt the Iran issue.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't recall anyone criticise the US for invading Afghanistan - thats when the US had the whole world on its side, but yes, u r correct I guess I should have said the west, and not the US wrt the Iran issue.

Why should Europe care if we invade Afghanistan? Afghanistan didn't have anything they wanted except heroin which you can still get.

 

[8236]

Why should Europe care if we invade Afghanistan? Afghanistan didn't have anything they wanted except heroin which you can still get.

I was saying we all supported ur invasion of Afghanistan.

LoL we can all get heroin more now cos the Taliban banned poppy cultivation. Now its flowing freely through the whole wide world.....

"Golden brown texture like sun
Lays me down with my mind she runs
Throughout the night
No need to fight
Never a frown with golden brown

etc."

 

[dilloduck]

I was saying we all supported ur invasion of Afghanistan.

LoL we can all get heroin more now cos the Taliban banned poppy cultivation. Now its flowing freely through the whole wide world.....

"Golden brown texture like sun
Lays me down with my mind she runs
Throughout the night
No need to fight
Never a frown with golden brown

etc."

er-----I think I just said that. Now invading Iraq screwed up all those sweet deals Europe had made with them and might just upset the growing Muslim population to a point where you can't handle it.

 

[Annie]

You are absolutely correct. Therefore, let's just wait until it becomes Europe's problem. I cannot fathom why Europeans view this as a US-only issue...oh wait, yes I can. Europe has depended on the US to bail it out since the WW I.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration advocate attacking Iran, though the military option is always on the table.

IMO, the UN and the rest of the Western world (minus the US) should handle Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine and any other global issue you care to mention. After all, they seem to have all the answers and they sure do not like the way the US does things.

I think you would find the following very interesting.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/0895260786/sr=1-1/qid=1164673404/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9661131-3976152?ie=UTF8&s=books[/ame]

 

[Gunny]

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Incorrect. Iran is NOT a fellow ARAB state, and Arabs are not Shia.

China will let us do their dirty work.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

Syria and Egypt would not engage in military action because we attack Iran.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

For the billionth time, the WMD threat was not a lie, and only the intellectually dishonest keep perpetuating the myth for no more reason than partisan politics.

That a world war against the US could be triggered is bullshit. The biggest problem with the world NOW is they won't even fight the bad guys because their heads are so far up their asses.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

Of course it's all Bush's fault. Even in this case ... a hypothetical scenario with the unlikliest of of conclusions reached.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

Yeah, let's sit home with our heads up our asses and pretend there aren't any people who live only to destroy the US and Western society as a whole. Then we can call ourselves Dim-o-crap losers too.

 

[Gunny]

Fact is though that Iraq had none and was secretly known to have none by Bush & co. (the ridiculing of Hans Blix looks pretty pathetic in hindsight).
Thats what i always used to whine on about on this board - the sheer stupidity of invading Iraq when it was clear to everyone on my side of the pond that it was all lies, damn lies and politicians.

However, we do and did know Iran is enriching - they even admit it, (that's a 'known known' i think ), and we also know that once they get them no-one will dare attack.

Except for the fact that Saddam used WMDs on more than one occasion. In order to use them he had to posess them. If he posessed them, he either pursued buying them or pursued making them. Hell, he was nabbed in 93 with a bio lab in DIRECT violation of the terms of ceasefire and a UN Resolution.

If an idiot government more than willing to destroy the entire Earth if it doesn't follow Iran's extremist religious idiology doesn't worry you, you must already follow Iran's extremist religious ideology. Your comment is all the more reason to bomb the Hell out of Iran NOW.

 

[Gunny]

You are absolutely correct. Therefore, let's just wait until it becomes Europe's problem. I cannot fathom why Europeans view this as a US-only issue...oh wait, yes I can. Europe has depended on the US to bail it out since the WW I.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration advocate attacking Iran, though the military option is always on the table.

IMO, the UN and the rest of the Western world (minus the US) should handle Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine and any other global issue you care to mention. After all, they seem to have all the answers and they sure do not like the way the US does things.

They're a bunch of secular-progressive, PC, appeasing pussies is why.

 

[Rico]

Of course we should and eventually will attack Iran. They are asking for it. We owe them big time for 1979. They are the world largest supporter of terrorism and are hindering our efforts in Iraq.

To not attack Iran, and as soon as possible, tommorow preferably, would be a major error. If we allow them to not only produce, but, of course distribute which they will, nuclear weapons the entire world is lurching to armegeddon. The Persians MUST be attacked and soonest. Just as the Greeks defeated Darius and Xerxes so must the West, i.e. The United States (We are the only western country left with the will), defeat the current version of Persians. Death to Iran!!!!!!

Consequences? Islamic terorrism ends. The Middle East tensions are lessened. The entire region fears Iran and secretly hopes we attack soon. Oil goes up for a while. Domestic production increases (A big personal WHOPEEE!!!!). Alternative energy gets a step up. Oil goes back down.