If we invade Iran are we going to lose WW3?

[K-W]

Will other arab states stand for an attack on Iran? Will they send troups into Iran if we send troups? Who would bail out the United States? Is there another military power in the world that would stand to gain from bailing the US out?

Would Bush drop the bomb to win this war?

Or will the muslim world stand by and let us invade Iran?

[mountainvue]

1. They're just trying to scare

you. Turn off the tv and tell as many people as you can to VOTE BUSH OUT. This is just a bunch of bullshit in Karl Roves bag of (not so) magical bullshit.

[K-W]

7. Iraq has already proven they arent just talk.

They named Iran at the get go. Iran, Iraq, North Korea. The Axis of Evil. They already hit one, why should I not believe they would hit another.

[mountainvue]

16. Okay. Let's run with that

idea for a minute. Who is going to invade? A bunch of mercs from Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root? Or do we just cut and run in Iraq? And then don't you think Mr. Potato Head over in Korea is going to get just a bit freaked out by this?

[K-W]

22. Thats easy.

They secure the oil fields and pipes in iraq and hand it over to a puppett government. We let Iraqis die in the Iraqi civil war where we are simply supporting the democratic government against terrorists. We start a draft and take the new recruits and troops from Iraq and go north.

Or, Bush comes up with shoddy evidence of nuclear weapons, and a submarine puts a nuclear bomb in Tehran.

[mountainvue]

28. This is post election.

He cannot do it now. That's why we muxt not let him be reelected.

[Gyre]

43. Couldn't agree more

Except you forgot to add that "the draft" is also getting readied for exactly this scenario.

Gyre

[WindRavenX]

2. All I know is this:

with each passing day, the world looks more and more like a bad Tom Clancy novel...:scared:

[mountainvue]

9. I know.

It's not going to be pretty for the next couple of months. We've got to hang in there, though. We don't have the troops to invade Iran and there's no way to garner enough support for it from now until the election

[K-W]

14. I think the scenerio is this.

Bush wins the election. Republicans strengthen control of thier hold in the congress and the senate through support of ultra conservatives. The administration takes complete control over the republican party and congress. The president gets a blank check and we are in WW3.

[mountainvue]

20. Now, if Bush wins

this is a completely differnt scenario. I would concur that we are off to stage war on a grand scale.

[WindRavenX]

15. "We don't have the troops to invade Iran"

One word: DRAFT.
If W. gets (re)selected, there will be a draft, and we will invade Iran and continue a neo-crusade.
For the sake of this country, Kerry must win; he will NOT drag us into another bullshit war.
And if Nader sympathizers can't see that...we've already lost.

[mountainvue]

21. Oh yes.

Absolutely.

[Cleita]

3. If we invade Iran, we have lost WWIII.

I think our allies will turn against us.

[burrowowl]

5. And Bu$h will

get pissed and drop a NUKE.
The wohole world will lose.

[Kool Kitty]

6. Damn, do we still have allies?

Besides Britain, I mean.

[Cleita]

18. Actually, we don't and it won't take much to pull them together

into a coalition to face up to us, including our nearer neighbors. As far as the nuke danger the poster above you mentioned, I don't think we have the capabilities we had during the cold war. I mean a lot of the silos have been emptied due to grass roots efforts from locals they were close to. Nobody tells you this but you hear things about this especially when you travel the country a lot like my husband and I did in the nineties.

[devinsgram]

50. I guess the fundies will get their wish then.

[TrustingDog]

4. WW3 has already happened....

WTO, IMF,... etc.
the silent killers.

Bush is bringing us to IV.

[K-W]

10. Granted, depends on your definition of war.

For me a war is when military groups fight multiple battles. Thus the war on terror, drugs, the cold war, are not wars, and neither has the economic attack on the world.

[TrustingDog]

27. slippery definitions....

bombs and soldiers are immediate killings, for the most part, (and we are so accustomed to this over the millenia) but this devilish new leash of devastating war has killed more numbers slowly suffering that a blackhearted general would salivate over.

[LowerManhattanite]

8. If this keeps up..

..we weill f*ck up and p*ss off the wrong country, who realizing that they cannot win a conventional war against us will probably hit us with a nuke somehow. The old "cornered rat" situation.

I have two kids---14 and 10. And as wonderful and open as this world is for them, it's actually more dangerous than the time I grew up under Detenté.

[mountainvue]

12. I agree with you.

Because say what you will about The Night Creature, he had foreign policy skills.

[Forkboy]

11. If there is a WW3 the whole world loses

:-(

[merh]

13. They have to get approval of Congress to use force against Iran.

So there will have to be hearings and debates and intel reports. Kerry and Edwards will have to stop campaigning to attend or else they will be protrayed as not caring. They will delay votes and prolong the process, just to keep K/E off the campaign trial. It is an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the K/E campaign to slow it down or stop it altogether.

(the resolution that allowed the use of force in iraq was specific to iraq and iraq alone - the pre-emptive doctrine is a * doctrine that has not been adopted by and/or approved by congress.)

(imho)

On edit - in WWII - there were 2 separte resolutions - 1 declaring war on Japan - 1 declaring war on Germany. There have to be specific resolutions of congress granting permission to use force.

If we do invade/attack Iraq, it will be WWIII.

[K-W]

19. But look at Iraq.

Your analysis would be very good for most presidents, but this administration has run rufshod over the constitution. Do you really think a no vote in congress would have stopped Iraq? Presidents have gotten alot of leeway in military force use in the past decades. I dont think congress can stop him. And if he wins and makes the congress that much more conservative, will they even try?

But yes, I do think this is also a campaign tool, of course, but I think if they win it will probably happen.

[merh]

26. No, too many folks are against Iraq - the polls (which is what these

guys pay attention to) all show that they do not support *'s efforts. Everybody knows somebody who has sacraficed because of iraq. The popularity isn't there and not all repukes will stand with *. The atmosphere in 2002 was gung ho patriotism. Now, people ain't so sure. They support the troops but the hate the war.

The only way we would go into iran is if iran assaulted our troops in iraq. An MIHOP is not out of the question and may be something they have in the works.

But, Congress will not let him go into Iran. Now that haliburton is being investigated for its dealings in Iran, I think it is odd how the admin is saying that iran is such a threat. You don't think folks in congress repukes and dems alike don't see this?

If he tries without congress, he will force them to declare him unfit. Some are just waiting for that chance, including f'u!

[mountainvue]

23. Are you sure?

My understanding is the president need only consult congress to delcare war. Since the passage of Patriot, et. al, if he were going after "Al Qaeda" would he still need to consult congress? I don't think so.

[merh]

29. The action in Iraq was by joint resolution of congress.

He cannot use force without congress. Patriot Act was in effect in Oct 2002 when HJR 114 was passed authorizing the use of force in iraq.

I can't find any resolution that would allow him to attack iran.

[K-W]

30. But the US has used force without congress before.

They called them police actions or hid it from congress. I believe according to the laws now the president has a grace period where he can wage war.

Regardless if he stands up and says, I am fighting for our very lives against terrorism, I have to do this. It doesnt matter if it is illegal if no one stops him. If congress doesnt try and stop him and the supreme court doesnt try to stop him, he can do whatever he wants.

Some people here seem to be forgetting that they dont care about the rules, they just care about what they can get away with and they seem to think they can get away with alot.

[merh]

35. Funding - the purse strings - that is where congress has a say.

Debate it all you want, I grow weary of trying to explain the differences between 2002 and now. Between the trust he once had and has lost with the American people.

In 2002 creeps like Mike Savage were swearing their allegance to him. Now, Savage is telling the neo-cons he won't vote for anyone in November - he won't vote for * and he is staying home. Alot of the neo-cons have lost their faith.

What you all hear is the spin of Rove and the voices of the fundies. Like extras in a movie, they are mere bodies, not true votes. Its a ploy to pull K/E from the campaign trail or make them look incompetent, it works either way.

So - if Iran is attacked, WWIII - I don't see if happending, he set a precedent getting the resolution from Congress re Iraq. It is election time - it won't happen before Nov and Kerry will win.
(unless they stage an attack on soldiers in iraq and blame it on iran.)

I am tired of trying to reason against the terra you all allow yourselves to be gripped by. I am going to bed.

[K-W]

37. You cannot assume Kerry will win.

Bush CAN win. And if he does, conservatives will step right back in line and congress wont do a damn thing. He will order the troops in and congress will send the money.

Anyone who votes against it would be voting to let the troops die.

Dont underestimate these people.

[merh]

47. Oh believe, I don't.

But I believe the citizens are being awaken and their eyes opened to the horror of this admin. With that said, I don't underestimate the people

[mountainvue]

31. Yes but he could have gone

without Congress. In fact, that was what he was plannning on doing at first.

[merh]

33. Then why didn't he do it?

[K-W]

34. Because he could.

It works better for him with congress giving him permission, he knew he they would say yes, so he asked. If he knew they were going to say no, he wouldnt have. He doesnt care about the rules, but he certainly likes the appearence of them.

[merh]

36. He set a precedent and congress cares and so do the people.

He is not as strong in the polls now as he was in 2002. He is trying to win an election. Ain't gonna happen if he invades without congress. There are more rational folks in the u.s. than you think.

[K-W]

38. of course this would happen post-election

I dont debate that he cant do it now. Unless there is a big terrorist attack, then all bets might be off.

[merh]

48. agreed - it will happen post election - if * wins.

[mountainvue]

52. Poppy talked him

out of it. Seriously.

[Dying Eagle]

17. I am worried about the Chinese

Where do they play in all of this. The closer we get to China and North Korea the more they will build up for a fight.

China would kick our ass in a conventional war. 10-1 troop ratio, with all the same technologies, scary!!

[mountainvue]

25. The Chinese

are our watchdogs for the North Koreans. They have no beef with us yet. They own roughly 30% of our debt. (I think that figure is accurate). No need to shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

[NewJeffCT]

49. China is letting us slowly kill ourselves

Right now, their military has nowhere near the tech level that ours does and they are probably behind Taiwan, though they could overwhelm Taiwan with sheer numbers.

However, China is perfectly happy to build up their economic base and will likely refurbish their infrastructure in the future (they have major electrical grid problems a la the US) while our grid is rotting and our highways crumbling due to a lack of money.

China also has a major problem with debt right now, but they are headed in the right direction in the long term and in 3-5-10 years, they will either let their currency float, or switch it to being tied to the Euro. They will no longer need to buy dollars and our dollar will go in the tank. The whole world, including China, will still suffer a recession, but that will be nothing compared to the US Depression / Deflation spiral.

The US will be brought to its knees by the Reagan & Bush deficits and it will take years to get it back. We'll either launch an unsuccesful attempt at WW3 in a vain attempt to regain our power, a la Germany in WW1 or WW2... or, we can learn to act like grown-ups and spend responsibly, provide for all our citizens and be a member of the world community.

[NuttyFluffers]

24. meh, all the world has to do is economic destruction.

switch to euros, demand their debt back, devalue the dollar, buy up or repo the best assets, watch the American Civil War and panic ensue. tah-dah! done.

we are in no position to make demands now. no country would be stupid enough to attack us directly like that when all they have to do is just ignore us from their attentions. we'd evaporate like the tired empire we are.

[Old and In the Way]

46. Exactly.

The next war will be economic. No one can compete with our military's technology....but that has come at a price.

If George decides God wants him to invade Iran, I don't see any more UN charades being played.

(1) Saudia Arabia will begin a liquidated sellout of their US assets...they know that they're next in the PNAC plan....that will trigger an immediate a drop in the USD. Real Estate prices head south.

(2) China/Japan will stop buying US debt....watch for a coordinated trade arrangement with the European/SE Asian markets to replace it. Now that would hurt China, but they can survive tough times....we'll feel the effect immediately in the disruption to our consumer economy.

(3) There's no surplus to fall back on...I suspect the average American's back account isn't a whole lot better. Their tangible asset (home) will be pffft in value.

I hope somebody explains the economic facts of life to Dimson.

[NEOBuckeye]

32. Invading Iran would mean The End for the United States as we know it

Aside from being damn near impossible to pull off under the current overextended state of our millitary -- something that even a draft wouldn't resolve -- The United States would probably face severe and crippling economic sanctions from a world already quite weary of neo-conservative "Pax Americana" imperialism. All they would have to do is simply cease all trading in dollars and seize the assets of American corporations dumb enough to OUTSOURCE their operations to Europe and Asia. With our forces spread thin across the Middle East, how could we dare hope to stop them? The economic train wreck resulting from these sanctions would make Black Tuesday in 1929 look like a party by comparison.

The Federal Government and our entire society would collapse inward upon itself. If we're dumb enough to give Bush and Cheney another 4 years, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing...

[Tight_rope]

39. I agree with you 1000%! Yes...100x10=1000

The US is walking on shakey grounds as it is. The world is watching. Yes, economically the US has more money...but when it comes to the physical bodies to fight, there is no way. Collectively, if people from many nations (N. Korea, China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, France, Cuba, and other nations that we have wrong so many times through the years) raise up against us. We will be in deep shit.

[shraby]

42. Economic sanctions aside,

what country would go into Iran with us? In fact, if we went into Iran, other countries (most) would align against us for starting another "preventative" war. Iran hasn't threatened us so it isn't a preemptive war. It would be a war of aggression and no other country would ally with us now. In fact, they would pull their military out of Iraq if they were smart. Russia is considering sending 40,000 troops to Iraq, maybe Bush and Putin have worked out a deal..he ties up Iraq while we go into Iran. Same old, same old Russia, only this time we are allied.
They are "soul" brothers.

[Porcupine]

40. Who says we haven't lost already?

We are massively in debt. We have shipped our industrial production overseas. We are entirely dependent upon a resource, oil, which we have no practical means of controlling.

We are burning the seed corn of our future! War is not just guns and troops and never has been. Frequently the most telling point in victory or defeat is logistics; food, transportation, health care etc. We are losing that one all by ourselves at home.

[Donkeyboy75]

41. I really don't think people will stand for it.

Except the Freepers. We can't invade every country, even with a draft.

Plus, even Dumbya and his advisors are smart enough to know that the rest of the Arab world would rise up against us. They aren't going to sit around waiting to be picked off one by one.

[Gyre]

45. I disagree

Arab nations have proven themselves to be totally toothless when it comes to mutual protection pacts with their fellow Arabs. Besides, Iran is not an Arab nation; so it will be that much easier for them to play ostrich and pray to allah that they aren't next.

Gyre

[Fovea]

44. Iran is not an Arab state

Iranians are Persians, and historically the Arabs are not horribly fond of them.

Now when Saudi Arabia tries to overthrow the Royal family, and we go in to prop up the throne, that is when things will go completely whack, not just in Arabia, but the Moslem world in general.

[SpiralHawk]

51. We will be just fine if we pay Jolly Ollie North (minimum wage)

to fly a fighter into Iran and draw fire from the US Hawk antiaircraft missiles he got for Iran in one of the most corrupt and treasonous deals ever....

I'm sure Ollie would be PROUD to take the fire from these missiles, and spare our pilots

The Official rap on Ollie:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm

United States v. Oliver L. North

"Oliver L. North, a Marine lieutenant colonel assigned to the National Security Council staff beginning in 1981 until he was fired on November 25, 1986, was the White House official most directly involved in secretly aiding the contras, selling arms to Iran, and diverting Iran arms sales proceeds to the contras."

[AngryAmish]

53. US will not invade Iran

1. Iran is huge, much larger than Iraq.
2. Iraq had a degraded air defense system (we kept bombing it for 10 years). Iran has not had similar sanctions and bombing. '
3. Most of Iraq is flat and open. This allows the US forces who depend on speed and maneuver certain advantages.
Most of Iran is bumpy. We lose much of our speed and maneuver capability.
4. There is a current dislike internally with the Mullahs who run Iran. The US goal is to foment civil war.
5. The US would never lose WW3. Or if we do we would commit nuclear genocide first.