Who said it did have anything to do with Iran?? I said that feelings in the ME aren’t likely to get worse…part of those worse feelings come from AQ. Q.E.D. our attacking Iran isn’t likely to make AQ (or anyone else) attack or hate us MORE than they already do. See?
Right. But, the funny part of this whole thing, if it turns out to be correct, is that these neo-cons like to think of themselves as being so smart and rational and not suckers like the rest of us and, in fact, they are the biggest suckers of all…Because their ideology so blinds them to the truth that they are willing to believe just about anything. I sort of imagine these Iranian intelligence folks telling the Iraqis that Chalibi was providing to make their stories more and more incredible just for the sheer fun of seeing how crazy they could make it and still have the U.S. buy it hook, line, and sinker!
It’s already fun to watch the Wall Street Journal editorial page trying to come to terms with the stuff about their buddy Chalabi. It is sort of like watching a game of “Twister”!
No, I don’t think that…and Ale had taken my response to you to god knows where. Certainly no where I was going with it. Do some Bush supporters think this way? Obviously they see links, and they also see an over all threat that groups certain nations together. Arguably North Korea IS a pretty bad nation and IS a destabalizing force in its region. Iran also could be characterized as having rogue tendencies, and certainly I fail to see why they would want to even tempt fate this way with even the POSSIBILITY of a nuke program. I don’t see direct links between AQ and Iran…or Iran and NK, or NK and AQ, etc…but that doesn’t mean they aren’t all (or could potentially become) a threat to regional stability, or even world stability.
No , it would only be an act of war , if the Iranians decided it would be. Look at it this way , a B-2 strike on their facilities sets their program back years , if not totally. The mullahs get peeved and send the army towards Iraq , with the intention of engaging American forces , and possibly using its airforce and missiles and attack Israel.
Awaiting this move are squadrons of B-52’s , B-1’s to destroy divisions on the move from Iran , that can only move at about 60 klicks a day , naval and airforce fighters , can destroy the Iranian airforce, back stopped by the Israeli airforce.
But it might , if they get smacked hard enough. Otherwise , send Green Beret A-teams into Iran and return the favor.
LOL, this is what I really wanted to reply to Tamerlane
Tamerlane is actually what the persian mothers use ,to scare their children with , some how I doubt thats what you were refering too, but it was a pleasant thought.
Yes . . . and then what? “NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.’” And if it’s likely to escalate, isn’t it better we don’t get into it in the first place? Isn’t it better to tolerate the existence of a nuclear-armed Iran than to risk a general regional war?
Sorta reminds me of Kennedys Generals telling him that they could take out 90 percent of Cuba’s missiles , but an invasion would have been required to fully ensure that none of the sites would ever be operational.
While the soviets could not do jack for the Cubans , should an invasion have taken place , they did have a dandy plan for taking berlin back , which would have meant the big one would have started.
The solution that worked in 62 would work equally as well today , blockade em , no muss , no fuss , total victory inside of three weeks.
Look, Declan, we can’t “blockade” Iran – it’s bordered by too many countries we don’t control. Blockading Iran would also mean taking its oil off the world market (or allowing it to be sold only under an Iraq-style “oil-for-food” program). You think we’re going to even consider that?
And we can’t afford a war. We already have 150,000 troops and God know how many more billions of dollars committed to holding down Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t have the resources to fight another war right now, and the Iranians know it. The whole world knows it. Diplomatic pressure is our only option.
Correction, I don’t see how it would be possible to blockade Iran. We could declare an embargo – but, as with Cuba, some countries might agree to follow suit, most wouldn’t.
I don’t see why that would lead to war. This happened all the time during the cold war. China or the USSR would fund insurgents and the US would fund other insurgents but at the end of the day there would be no war. Why would there be one now? The USSR didn’t declare war when the US funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
You don’t see why what would lead to war – the Iranians funding Iraqi insurgents, or the U.S. making incursions into Iran to put a stop to that? The first (assuming it’s really happening, of which I’m still not convinced) won’t lead to war if the Bush Admin decides to tolerate it. The second would lead to war, I’m afraid.
What i’m saying is this has been happening for a long time. It happened all the time in the cold war. The Chinese and Russians would fund North Koreans or North Vietnamese and American soldiers and their allies in that country would die. The US would respond by funding insurgents in places like Afghanistan where Russian troops would die. None of it led to war so I don’t see why this situation would be different. Maybe because Iran is a small country w/o WMD to attack its enemy like the US, China and USSR were.
huh? huh?