Fox is selling another war - Target Iran

[mikelewis]

I just watched a Fox special on Iran and it was completely unbelievable. They are openly calling for air strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. They had 3 generals, Ariel Sharon and a few other "experts" saying that there is roughly a 50-60% chance that it will be necessary for us to launch massive air strikes against Iran to curtail thier nuclear capabilities.

Now, I don't know about you but there isn't one official out there who could convince me this is a good idea. Even Biden, who made a short comment on the show couldn't convince me. He stated and I'm not sure of the exact quote but it was something similar to...

"I wouldn't take the military option off the table but this is calculus not arithmaitic." He was cut off after this and if you know Biden at all, you'll know he probably had a lot more to say about this but Fox made it seem as if he supported the military option.

There was also a concensus that an attack on Iran would result in a retalition through terrorism throughout the world and even here. DUH!

They also are hoping that the Democratic movement will gain strength and negate the need for the military option. I believe it's Santorum who is putting forth a bill that will increase funding for pro-democracy forces in Iran.

All in all, it looks like Fox is selling a war with Iran and the Conservative Robots are probably biting thier nails over Iran's WMD program. Oh and by the way, they showed several visiuals of nuclear bombs exploding. I wonder if the conservative robots will remember this is the same line of bullshit they sold us to get us into Iraq.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewJeffCT]

3. I know, we *know* China has WMD

what's the matter George, chicken?

[raccoon]

48. China's a BIG country, can't attack them. nt

[Sparkly]

17. They couldn't take on ANYbody.

They just send other people's family members to do it for them -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, moms and dads... If it involved them risking a hangnail, they wouldn't dare.

[Disturbed]

2. What would a war on Iran be like..

in military terms. A possible scenerio?

[wakeme2008]

6. Well to begin with Iran has

missles that will take out our aircraft carrier(s). Once * starts this war, Iran WILL fight back. They do have the chem/bio agents that they were using against Iraq.

This could get ugly...

[gordianot]

55. Onyx and Sunburn missle would do the trick for carrier task forces.

Maybe they have squirreled away a few nuclear WMD's after all. Wonder what kind of deal they have worked out with Russians. If there is an invasion there is something in it for Putin. (Good old histroy repeats itself remember Poland?) Maybe a trap? Teach those American Imperialist once and for all who is the better Imperialist.

[NewJeffCT]

7. Not 100% sure

But, I think they are currently more capable militarily than Iraq was before we invaded. And, I'm pretty sure their population would likely be even angrier than Iraq's at being occupied. That is - if we could occupy them with our military stretched so thin as it is.

That said, wasn't Iran slowly heading towards a more open/democratic society before Bush calling them part of the axis of evil strengthened the position of conservative hardliners there?

[wakeme2008]

20. Notes on the Russian Sunburn anti-ship missle

" Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today."

And Iran has these.....

[Imagevision]

51. Rove instructs Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity agenda for YOU!

Then an idea is hatched, personnaly I think they're trying to deflect heat from the more serious story that being-- BUSH/BLAIR memo leak.

[mikelewis]

8. They offer 4 scenarios though I only caught 2

3rd) Air stikes with Bunker Busters - The most likely, according to Fox.

4th) Ground assault - Almost 2 chance "as low as 1%"

They are advocating a massive aerial campaign with bunker busters loaded on cruise missiles. The concern was Iran would attack Isreal and/or targets in Iraq and this would turn the Middle East into a complete nightmare. Iran may also respond with terrorism.

They said that England does not support attacking Iran and said that since Europe was "sleeping", it would be necessary for us to do it alone without a coalition.

[Stand and Fight]

18. On bunker busters...

Did you catch the bit where they said they could be launched from the U.S.? My question is this -- does Iran have bunker busters? If not, can they get them? This is not going to be pretty if we go this route.

[kliljedahl]

9. We'd get our asses kicked

It's bigger than Iraq, more people. Even if we weren't stretched thin, it'd be worse than Iraq. & they're not as divided, with only one major ethnic group, not three.

Can you spell "Disaster"?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[wurzel]

16. We could destroy Iran. But we could not possibly fight the Iranians.

Unfortunately George Bush does not know the difference.

[mikelewis]

21. Oh come on now...

If we attack Iran, the people will rise up against the Mullahs and automatically institute Democratic reforms. The reconstruction would be paid for by the Iranian Oil and the total cost would be roughly $1,000,000 and take roughly 1 week, tops....

[kliljedahl]

26. You forgot showering us with flowers & candy

Just like Kerry forgot Poland


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[spacelady]

29. That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before??! n/t

[wurzel]

31. Are you interested in a job as head of the World Bank?

You certainly qualify.

[blondeatlast]

27. Which has been made abundantly clear, but somehow has completely escaped

notice in the US.

We're fucked, IMHO.

[Jo March]

47. B-u-s-h

;)

[gumby]

19. Wouldn't Iran retaliate by striking our forces in Iraq?

If there is an attack on Iran, I think the rest of the world will unite against us. It won't be pretty.

Then there will be the obligatory strike against this country -- think "dirty bomb," because "they" have already indoctrinated this population with that 'selling point.' Martial Law and the neo-cons against the World. It's very, very bad.

[Daphne08]

40. It's a huge country with hostile terrain. It would be impossible

with the troops we have now. There would have to be a draft which I adamantly oppose.

If the administration tries to push this, I really believe (God, I hope) there will be a public uprising.

I recognize the fact that the U.S. is hated by the ruling Moslem clerics, but I think the people are oppressed and have more moderate feelings about us... at least for now.

They actually could possibly oust this ruling Islamic regime. Of course, I could be mistaken on this since I'm not an expert on Iran, but then, neither is Rumsfeld!

This administration and Rumsfeld have misspent their so-called political capital in Iraq! We're stuck!

[eridani]

59. The people will unite behind the mullahs against us--

--even the ones who despise the mullahs now.

[MadisonProgressive]

49. It would make Iraq look like a elementary school bake sale.

[KaryninMiami]

4. It's all part of the plan. Fox is the perfect medium for them.

Not only for testing the waters, but dipping knee deep into the inevitable. That's after all, what Fox does best- provide a mouthpiece (and megaphone) for the next steps of the Bush regime.

Wonder if we'll be in there by June as predicted? Time will tell.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Well you know who they get their marching orders from

You thought they couldn't be that crazy? Apparently they are that crazy.

[blondeatlast]

28. I no longer question if they are that crazy.

I simply sigh and shake my head sadly...

[jimshoes]

10. Ever wondered what it would feel like to be

at war with the world? Wait a month.

[bahrbearian]

11. "this is calculus not arithmaitic."

if Chimmpy can't do the math , how can we expect him to do Calculus.
"I do support no Monkey left behind."

[melv]

12. remember when this was predicted: attack on Iran in June

by Scott Ritter and that NYT columnist...

[mikelewis]

15. Read this article by Seymor Hersh... It explains everything.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[mikelewis]

13. I'd really like to know what Biden's whole statement was...

They cut him off quick. I guess they put him up there to show that they are "fair and balanced" though they showed 20 Iran warhawks and then an abridged Biden statement. Fair and balanced my ass.

[ArthurRuger]

14. "Fox is selling another war - Target Iran"

Now ask yourself ... despite the issues of their working toward a nuclear weapon, Iran has not attacked anyone recently.

The administration is not yet beating the drums this loudly as they did pre-Iraq shock and awe.

But here comes the notoriously biased shill for the Republican and neocon agenda - possibly the first salvo followed by an intensified campaigning from the administration to justify an attack on Iran?

It is starting to get draftier and draftier around here.
This smells ... the source of the broadcast, the content and the transparancy of history repeating itself so soon.

[gumby]

24. Check out this thread

from the notorious Swift Boater, Corsi, in his appearance on C-Span - hosted by the fascist Heritage Foundation.

"Is anyone watching Jerome Corsi saying Iran planning to nuclear-bomb.." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708

[Stand and Fight]

22. Bunker Busters

If you watched the program people, you'll understand that they are really beating the drums now. They won't go ground war because they know we'd get our asses handed to us. But they did bring up bunker busters that can be launched from the U.S... If the implications of that don't alarm you, then nothing will. Think -- Cuban Missile Crisis.

[blondeatlast]

23. From the Heritage Foundation, to FAUX, to the MSM, to your

Rush-listenin' neighbor.

Shall we start a pool/spreadsheet on the timeline?

I'm calling November of this year.

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. We should INSIST, immediately, that Democratic politicians...

speak to this issue right now. I want people like Clinton, Schumer, and Lieberman and yes, Kerry, on record as to whether or not an unprovoked attack on Iran is acceptable under current circumstances.

Might save a lot of pussyfooting and doubletalk later on.

[CoffeeCat]

30. Fox News signifies the impending neocon agenda...

Obviously, they're trying to "sell" us war with Iran. They're starting now with fear, terror and looming threats.

This is a Rovian move. Saturate the public with propaganda. Soften them up. Prepare them for what's to come.

Interesting. Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersch both said Iran in June. Mid may would seem the appropriate target date to begin ramping up the "big sell."

I'd look for some Iranian-based publicity stunts to come down the pipeline soon. We'll hear about new "evidence" of nukes or some other propaganda designed to instill fear and reduce the Iranian people to radical insects that must be exterminated.

When they start this BS, we need to counter with louder voices than theirs. Dems need to stand up and say, "This is bullshit!" instead of allowing their warmongering, evil propaganda to take root.

This should be taken VERY, VERY seriously.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

37. I agree with you about Fox.

The neocons always thought that we should be able to fight 2 wars plus have some troops available for minor conflicts at the same time. Are there any major troop movements going on that we know of?
How will they be able to do this without a draft (like they claim to not be interested in)?
If this is true and not a neocon wet dream, a draft will have to be instituted. Will the people take to the streets? Does it spell the end of the neocons?
I think we should keep our eyes on the foreign press for clues.

[sunnystarr]

53. Get ready for another 911 then cause that's what it would take

to get Americans behind an attack on Iran and a draft. My guess is that it will have to be bigger than 911 was to get the sheeple to line up for slaughter.

[LondonReign2]

58. Actually, Ritter said...

Scott Ritter didn't say the attack would come in June, he said the U.S. would have everything in place as of June. Therefore, the attack could come as early June, but he didn't say it WOULD happen then.

The implication here is that just because it doesn't happen in JUNE doesn't mean it won't still happen. I guess timing will be based on when the propaganda machine can again convince the sheeple of the "imminent threat".

[zulchzulu]

32. War Is Good For Bu$ine$$

No one who watches Faux Snooze care about Iranians...innocent civilians...nah...just get some good graphics demonizing Iranians like a bad cartoon and they are in.

Bush's poll ratings would go up too. Heck, I can even see country western stars ready to write some more jingoistic songs to sell the war too.

It's inevitable...as long as Chimpy is the War Pimp.

[harpo]

33. What about OUR nuclear capabilities? Who is going to bomb us?

[bonzotex]

34. Look at Korea not Iran

Fox as usual is just blithering. Sy Hersh and others have made a decent case that the Bush boys are fixated on attacking Iran. Maybe they are, but world events often derail think-tank plans. Most of the case for attacking Iran is weak even by Neocon standards of intelligence. We don't have the resources to do more that airstikes against Iran and they are simply not close enough to being a Nuclear threat to anyone yet.

There really is a crisis brewing in North Korea that might really demand military action. Unfortunately this is right around the corner and will happen on Bush's watch. Here's a worst case scenario.

If NK tests a nuke or otherwise proves they have a deliverable weapon and they test a missile that could carry it to American soil. What would the US do? Faced with a hostile, schizophrenic, nasty little nation like North Korea with ICBMs and nukes. What would Dubya do? Maybe nothing,that's been his strategy with North Korea so far. Insult and ignore them and keep focus on conntries that sit on lakes of oil. North Korea with ICBMs and nukes?...There would be a very very strong push from the Neocons to eliminate that threat.

If the goal of a preemptive attack was to remove NK's Nuclear capability we would have to use nukes. The N Koreans have extensive, deeply tunneled complexes all over the country. The best conventional weapons we have, even if we could concentrate all our air power in one massive surprise attack wouldn't guarantee we could keep the N Koreans from getting one or several missiles off. A preemptive attack of any kind on North Korea would trigger a general North South war. We don't have the Divisions available we used to have committed on paper to reinforce South Korea. Once again, it makes sense, from a purely military power standpoint to attack first,with nukes, and take out the key nuclear and command targets. With the collateral damage from the initial strikes and the advantage of choosing when it happens (being prepared) the existing US and south Korean troops can hold their own on the DMZ.

Think like a Neocon. You eliminate a hated Stalinist holdover. You demonstrate that the US is willing to use any means to prevent "unstable" regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons. You then look at Iran and say, "you're next if you build a nuke".
So the US becomes an international pariah? When has that bothered the Neocons? They'd think it was cool. 100s of thousands of dead Koreans? Sorry, freedom is on the March, couldn't be helped. Japan irradiated? Sorry, we were protecting y'all, get over it.

This sounds crazy but If anyone told you 5 years ago that in 2005 we'd be 2 years into an occupation of Iraq, 300 billion war-dollars in the hole with 1600 dead 10,000 wounded, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, more dying every day, building permanent military bases, and absolutely no plan on when we'll leave ...you'd probably have said that was impossible too. You'd have said nobody, not even the wackiest Republicans, could be that stupid. The American people would never stand for it. And here we are.

[applegrove]

35. For them: just so long as no coverage is done of the Presidential Press

Conference.

Anything but the facts.

[TexasLawyer]

36. C'mon, somebody else recommend this thread

It's important for people to know about Fox's war-mongering, and its blatant shilling for the RNC !

[foo_bar]

38. Biden sounds a bit like our own Dem_Strategist

Famous last words:

"This is calculus not arithmetic!"

"You're playing checkers. We're playing chess."

[BigBearJohn]

39. Hey people what's that sound; everybody look what's going down

:nuke:

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. FOR THE CONTEXT READ THROUGH THIS THREAD - VERY IMPORTANT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708
Thread title: "Is anyone watching Jerome Corsi saying Iran planning to nuclear-bomb {the US, presumably New York?)"

Read the whole thing - each reply builds it further and links are added.to videos, books, web pages, horrible planned TV ads, much more.

THIS IS A MONSTROUS THING - WE CANNOT BE COMPLACENT - THE MEDIA BARRAGE OF PROPAGANDA IS JUST STARTING, BUT IT GETS EVEN WORSE THAN THAT.

The Fox program is only one small but significant part - it's mentioned in this downthread reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1768708&mesg_id=1771338

[psychopomp]

42. Al-Sistani could loose the reins on Sadr

and the more restless Shia who would be ready to fight...that would be bad.

[PATRICK]

43. Comparing the Iraq drumbeat

That first was the virginity part I suppose. Now the UN is more of an ex-lover to discard than someone to seduce.

However the buildup seems rather desultory to be one for early summer as some had said. THAT was part of the Iraq buildup too, the expectation of an early assault which never materialized- for whatever reason.

I also get the sense that despite the Iraq example(or BECAUSE of their success withe Sunnis in Iraq) they think regime change will be some sort of internal cakewalk(for our purposes). I get a lot of unpopularity of the repressive ayatollah regime but no one is getting near what catalysts are both inviting the BushCo vultures AND guaranteeing "success".

It seems the fall or next year are better either because the economy and
foreign affairs are ugly but holding OR some terrorist devastation will catapult the awaiting PNAC agenda to its next pre-planned step.

Militarily, I really believe we are LESS capable than ever of taking a country of decent size with no "lessons learned" and "experienced troops"
untainted by attrition, purges and really wrongheaded ideological blending with the chickenhawk fantasist profiteers.

Something incredibly worse seems to be brewing side by side with the continued blindsided, ineffectual and unprepared SANE people in this country, but also the world(Including the announced victims to be).
This is one destiny we should not allow to gel. The fact that various "smart" people and world leaders grin and bear the Bushco monstrosities thinking to reap something from the game I consider at this point functionally insane.

[PATRICK]

44. Oh and how does bombing even begin to get us the oil?

nt/

[lildreamer316]

45. And Just Exactly WHO is going to do the fighting?

I mean, it's not like we have alot of military to spare running around,now is it? (I realize they were just talking about air strikes, but gimme a break-sooner or later someone has to be on the ground, right?)

[pgh_dem]

56. Same people who've always done it...

"Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?"
System of a Down, BYOB...performed Live on SNL 5/07/05, for anybody interested in 'protest music' cropping up on national TV (like Bright Eyes on Leno)

[unhappycamper]

46. No thanks, I've already got two unwinnable ones going on......nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

50. Corsi's book "Nuclear Iran" has been out in bookstores for a while...

Pure propaganda at its best...

The front cover has a picture of ominous looking eyes of and obviously Middle Eastern man with mushroom clouds reflected in his eyes.

The truth: Iran has an active nuclear program (funded by the U.S. via Cheney in the '70s) for power generation, but NO active weapons program. There's a big difference in nuclear capability for power vs. weapons...Iran is years away from the later (if they are planning for weapons at all).

[goodboy]

52. All smoke and mirrors, the target is Venezuela. We don't go to places

that actually pose a threat to us. Otherwise, Iran would've been our first stop.

[txaslftist]

54. Hopefully they will wait until the have a stable base...

...in Iraq from which to base their attacks. That way we know they will never happen.

Seriously, though, the administration has been shilling for an attack on Iran for a long time. I doubt it will go any farther than air strikes on Iran's nuke facilities, but at least that much of an attack is pretty certain.

The big question is how will Teheran respond?

I see a number of possibilities. They might take the air strikes as a basis for an attack on our troops in Iraq, by air, tit for tat. They still have an air force, after all. They run a pretty high risk of losing both planes and face in this course of action, however. They might respond with missiles directed at our Iraqi troops. This is much more likely, because even if we can knock down most of them with Patriots, some will get through and kill Americans. They may choose not to respond militarily, but increase support for insurgent style activities, taking advantage of the huge gain in recruits a direct attack by the US would engender.

The net result of any Iranian response is to put the ball back in our court. Will we follow up with stronger air attacks? Will we put boots on the ground in Iran?

US boots on the ground in Iran would be, IMO, a major disaster. For one thing, the Iranians aren't Iraqis. They are much more nationalistic, with a much stronger identity as Iranians. The Iranian insurgency that would follow would make the Iraqi insurgency look pretty tame be comparison.

If I had to make a prediction, though, I'd say you are going to see US boots on the ground in Iran by the end of 2005. And a whole lot of toe-tags.

[Geek_Girl]

57. One things for Certain if we attack Iran

Oil prices will sky rocket!

[skoppa]

60. Good old agenda setting power of the media

Don't you just love it?:sarcasm: