Iran saying US not in a position to go to war with them and that

[texpatriot2004]

the US is trumping up the "evidence" again just like with Iraq. Don't you just love the international attention we are getting lately. This one is really great. You always want the whole world to know you are stretched thin and your recruitment is down because the war is for OIL and the rich. BTW glad the recruitment for this war is down. I actually think if it were an honest threat, a noble cause, we would have plenty of soldiers.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1839231

[sepia_steel]

1. we really would

It's sort of embarassing, all of this...

[texpatriot2004]

2. Extremely embarrassing and shameful...just like that UK article

says.

[lcordero2]

3. I differ from you on that account

People are so careful, cynical and are better able to research now that they are not going to view anything as an "honest threat" or a "noble cause". The young already know how shabbily prior generations of soldiers are treated.

[bridgit]

4. i think that's why cheney is making plans for nukes there...

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734 "Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran"

[cynatnite]

5. There is always some military plan somewhere...

You could probably find a million others on invading Cuba, nuking Cuba, North Korea and several other countries. These things are an unfortunate part of war-planning and doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen.

You could find tons of war plans going back to the early cold war days. This is nothing new.

[pattim]

7. We basically have several plans for invading any combination of countries

at any time. We have plans to invade North Korea while defending Taiwan from China. We have plans to take out North Korean and Iranian nuclear capability at once. We have plans to win a nuclear exchange with any other nuclear power. We have plans to intervene in a Indo-Pakistani war. We have plans to blockade and starve China while invading Iran. We have plans for every possible contingency, going back to the end of WW2. But very few get used.

Just like the boy scouts--be prepared.

[bridgit]

9. true...

:nuke:

[baron j]

23. They must've lost those studied plans for invading Iraq.

;-)

Though they seem to want this chaos as an excuse for more, so...

[pattim]

40. No, we kicked ass in the invasion of Iraq.

That was an unqualified success.

We had no contingency plans for the peace if everything didn't work right, despite the state department's urges. And that's where we're losing it.

[baron j]

44. No offense to you, or to the soldiers commanded to attack,

but I could never look upon an unprevoked invasion based on trumped up info and the subsequent killing of many Iraqis, civilian and soldier, as a "success".

[teryang]

25. Plans to invade North Korea???

With what?

Plans to intervene in an Indo-Pakistani war? You mean militarily? On the ground?

Don't think so.

The most authoritative sources on Korean nuclear infrastructure admit they have no idea whether N.Korea has nukes and if they do, where they are. No American ground war has ever been planned against China since the Korean conflict nor on the Indian sub-continent. By the way that is what an invasion of N.Korea is, a ground war against China.

Plans to win a nuclear exchange? Sorry, that isn't how it works. One deters a nuclear exchange. Nobody wins.

[MildyRules]

32. Actually the plan

is called "Defense of South Koera." But he plan is for a defeat of the North.

[teryang]

42. North Korea is within the Chinese defensive perimeter

A plan for a military defeat of the North is a pipe dream.

[pattim]

39. Look, we're obviously not going to initate a nuclear exchange.

1.But you're incredibly underinformed if you believe that nowhere in the DoD is a plan to win a nuclear exchange with the PRC, should it come to that. One deters a nuclear exchange, yes, but if that fails, one strikes first and wins it. Yes, several American cities would be forfeit, as would most Japanese. But if the United States sincerely believed a nuclear attacks was imminent, we would pre-emptively strike with intent to win. We have quite a few submarines off territorial waters, and we have aircraft carriers with nuclear-tipped missiles. It would be quite possible to take out 90% of China's nuclear capacity in the opening minutes.

2. An invasion of the DPRK is not a ground war against the PRC. China now values its economic links to the West more than its strategic partnership with DPRK. When they were both pariahs, hated by the Soviet Union and the West, that wasn't the case, but it isn't 1960 any more.

3. Yes, we do have plans for a ground war against the PRC. Do you seriously believe the US has no contingency plans? And do you seriously think that we have no plans for something as likely as a US invasion of DPRK, when at any moment the DPRK could theoretically level the ROK army and take Seoul within 9 hours?

We have no intent to invade DPRK or PRC, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't have plans in place if we had to. Perhaps you misread "plans" as "intentions." My meaning was "blueprints."

[teryang]

43. Aircraft carriers with nuclear tipped missiles?

What is your source for that?

Frankly you are poorly informed about Chinese interests in northeast Asia and the almost complete lack of American capability in the fareast. I submit you have virtually no knowledge of the conventional order of battle there.

[bridgit]

8. but for the fact that these guys would do it...

static war plans are akin to paper tigers, these are the remnants of the early cold warriors in office

[cynatnite]

11. I'm not convinced they would do it...

There isn't enough support for it. They have to save the skin of their party and going after Iran would make sure the repukes get their asses kicked.

Another preemptive war would be the final nail in the coffin of the repuke party.

[bridgit]

13. i think they are well capable of taking that step, as to whether...

it is to their advantage...my sense is that they believe they are making judgments no other leaders are willing to make. do i think it would be right to do so? i do not.

they've had no proper support for the excursion they're involved in presently; but they have clearly entered iraq with something far less than 'a war plan', pre-thought or otherwise, and that is painfully obvious now. it has not stopped them, it has made them cagier, more prone to lash out imo.

the world may be the lesser for it

[cynatnite]

19. And they are suffering for it, too...

I do disagree with you. Capable of it...yes, they are. But I think they know what another preemptive war will cost them dearly in money and in politics.

They'll talk the same old tired rhetoric as before, but won't take that extra step. It's too costly. Iran is friends with a lot of countries we don't want to piss off. Russian being one of them.

Given the animosity the US is faced with because of bush and regime dragging us into this war, to start another one while we are so thinly stretched would be the height of stupidity. I give the regime a lot of shit and they've been stupid plenty of times, but this is one road I don't believe they'll take.

[bridgit]

21. they are a cult of personality, fear & eternal war are their products...

our apathy is what makes it all come true for them.

[tatertop]

6. Cheney will do it if he can. He wants to press the button.

[bridgit]

14. cheney is an odd one, of that there is no doubt...

[texpatriot2004]

16. ate up with greed and avarice he is...nm

[bridgit]

18. a walking, talking 'picture of dorian gray'...

[texpatriot2004]

20. Hmm. I am not familiar with the story. Looked it up and found this.

"...By this time, Dorian had become totally corrupt, as vile and ugly as the figure in the portrait."

[bridgit]

22. yup, that's the guy all right...

dorian stayed youthful (not cheney's issue) while his portrait in the attic became all the more disfigured x(

[bluestateguy]

10. So far, I don't see the public going along with it

SO FAR.

So far I don't see people buying it like they did for months prior to March, 2003.

[texpatriot2004]

17. Me either but I am not sure that matters. nm

[LynnTheDem]

12. It most certainly won't be an invasion & occupation.

There is not a hope in hell that America could invade & occupy Iran. No, not even with a draft.

We'd lose every soldier we put in, and those sunburns would take out the entire US fleet sitting in the Gulf.

Going nuclear would indeed ensure our destruction.

[Neil Lisst]

15. Iran and reality, something Bush can't comprehend

Iran

Sure, they are involved with elements in Iraq. They always have been, and western and southern Iraq is culturally and religiously closer to Iran than either the Iraqi Sunnis or Iraqi Kurds.

But Iran is larger, stronger, and economically healthier than Iraq ever was. Iran has a strong middle class that favors nuclear power for Iran. While they may diverge with the Mullahs on governance, they want nuclear power for Iran.

The US can't defeat two nations of 25 million people each. Iran is right. The US cannot go to war with Iran now.


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[LynnTheDem]

24. Iran population; 68,278,826 (July 2003)

Iraq truly is a "cakewalk" in comparison to what an invasion & occupation attempt of Iran would be.

[Disturbed]

27. Tinfoil hat?

I beleive that if Bushco were seriously trying to invade Iran or attack via air that they would be taken out and not to dinner.

[Neil Lisst]

28. and they have an Air Force

Iran is substantially bigger, stronger, and richer than Iraq.

No one is buying that Iran is a bigger threat than North Korea, and Bush can forget starting another war.


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Paulie]

26. Yep, and they have not had 12 years of sanactions to deal with

Their army is strong and motivated, knowing the example of Iraq and how they will be treated if they "lose".

Iran isn't even in the same league as Iraq. They are not even the same sport!

[CJCRANE]

29. An attack

will be from the air or by supporting local opposition groups (i.e. proxy war like they did using the Northern Alliance against the Taliban).

[LynnTheDem]

30. Do that & Iran's sunburn missiles will take out every US ship in the Gulf

for a start.

[bridgit]

31. do that & this group of neocons will need no other excuse to turn...

iran into a silicon parking lot :nuke: again, not my plan but theirs :thumbsdown:

[LynnTheDem]

33. Do that and the world will unite against the USA.

Bend over, grab yer ankles, and kiss yer ass buh-bye.

[bridgit]

34. sadly, this bush guy doesn't give a rat'z puh-tooty about the world...

he lives miles off the nearest access road, neither do his handlers; they only care as each election approaches & then passes; they seem happy to do 'whatever' it takes to win them, in-between times the world is plenty united against us imo which is more-than-why they have to go starting election 2006

but it is not a game

[LynnTheDem]

35. I mean united as in buh-bye USSA.

We'd be nuked off the face of the earth.

bush may not care...but I betcha his "haves and have mores" base bloody well does. ;)

[bridgit]

36. at that point all bets would be off & there would be hell to pay...

"Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the U.S. put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official."

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6098

'A clash between the triumphal rhetoric of global domination and the sordid reality of failure in practice lies ahead. The Senate, on the brink of its metaphorical Armageddon, backed down. Would the president, facing defeat of his policies somewhere in the world, do likewise? Or might he actually reach for his nuclear option?'

[LynnTheDem]

37. Yeppers. But bush's "haves and have mores" know it.

And if bush manages to go ahead anyways, we all gotta die sometime, eh? Nice knowing ya. And hey think of the bright side...ain't gonna be any rightwingnuts in Heaven. ;)

[bridgit]

38. that sounds about right to me...

:hi: nearer my god to thee O8)

[texpatriot2004]

41. Great song, they played on the Titanic while it was sinking. n/t