Iran to fire '11,000 rockets in minute' if attacked

[Richard D]

Source: AFP

Oct 20 07:28 AM US/Eastern

Iran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.

"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful. Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=071020112808.cc3so4b1&show_article=1

[Rhythm and Blue]

1. Nice to know both sides are keeping cool heads. nt

[IndyOp]

2. This would be why attacking Iran is *not* like attacking Iraq...

Iraq could not fight back. Iran can and will.

:(

[tridim]

5. And the millions of young, pro-Western Iranians will instantly become anti-US.

But that's the only thing Bush is good at, stirring up the hornet's nest and creating new enemies.

[Richard D]

17. Yup

Reminds me of the scene in "Enter the Dragon" when the bad guy in a display of his prowess breaks a thick wooden board in a karate blow and Bruce Lee says "Boards don't hit back".

[JeanGrey]

34. It would only ensure Iran's destruction.

They wouldn't fight for long.

[IndyOp]

35. How many bombs would ensure Iran's destruction? How many would die?

And while they are fighting - with those 11,000 bombs reigning down on U.S. military bases in Iraq - how many U.S. troops will die?

The Iranians seem to be preparing a response that, in order to for the U.S. to prevent or counteract, will require the use of many, many U.S. weapons of mass destruction.

Ensuring Iran's destruction. They wouldn't fight for long. <- This makes me feel sick at the amount of damage that will have to be dropped on them to make it true.

[JeanGrey]

40. Iran does not have the power to wage much of a war.

That's just facts. If they start one, they would be ensuring their own destruction in a matter of hours, more than likely. I don't see them doing it, no matter how much they "rattle" their sabres.

[Strelnikov_]

42. "ensuring their own destruction in a matter of hours"

Explain to me how in the hell their destruction is ensured 'in a matter of hours' when nearly five years after taking on a country 1/4th of the size of Iran we are at stalemate?

[Pavulon]

43. Insurgent war vs massive strategic bombing..

in an insurgent war you fight an enemy who blends in with the population, you care about things like limiting damage to infrastructure etc, if you want to win. (obviously not what is going on iraq)

I think the poster is referring to the massive conventional strike by the navy and air force directed at massed troops and infrastructure Iran would be powerless to stop. That is the job the us armed forces were built to do.

In a strategic bombing campaign, the lives of civilians are of no consequence, infrastructure is the target. The goal being to destroy as many targets as possible in a short period of time.

I would bet an order of battle exists and would be implemented in the event of Iran attacking a us target(s)

[Strelnikov_]

45. What are you talking about?

You know, you don't have to give me a lesson in 'Militarist 101' every time you post. I was once in the military, I understand the use and limitations of military systems.

The poster stated 'ensuring their own destruction in a matter of hours'.

A) Short of using nukes, there is no way Iran can be destroyed 'in a matter of hours'.

B) Unless you adopt the neo-con definition of victory, 'Iraq' is not pacified, therefore they are not destroyed. Call me crazy, but pouring $12B/mo., and locking up a good part of our ground forces up in a third rate backwater, does not appear to be a real big win to me.

In other words, with all the biggest wiz bang shock n awe, the massive investment of resources, we still have not won Iraq. Which, for us, translates into a loss.

On edit: And if we cannot win against a insignificant power like Iraq, how are we going to win against Iran? Answer, we don't. Both countries will ultimately be destroyed, one physically, one economically. Different paths, same end result.

Oh, and Dr. Strangelove, after we have implemented said "strategic bombing campaign" in which "the lives of civilians are of no consequence, infrastructure is the target" to ensure their "destruction in a matter of hours", what do you think the Muslim Street is going to do. Think it will still look like the big win after, say, a couple generations of blowback.

[Pavulon]

47. If I curse will it make me smarter??

Hours no, days sure. Destruction meaning "only able to hide in a hole and wait to be blown up" Unable to move people, or material would also fit the bill. Having all their civil works blown up, government attacked, etc, would certainly occur.

Iraq is not the discussion here. This is an Iran thread. Different war.

So I am sure you are aware of the massive air power and surface to surface systems capable of attacking iran. Seen a tomahawk fly? No, what are we saving them for? I am sure you are aware that there is a team of people using many resources to keep a war plan ready.

A RESPONSE to an Iranian attack would involve invoking the NATO treaty. It would not be a shock and awe event. It would be a GW1 event. Sustained 2 -5 thousand sortie days into iran.

My national guard service is irrelevant here as is yours, unless you happened to be a planner, however reading and understanding how the world works is relevant.

In the event of an iranian attack on us interests the "muslim street" is irrelevant.

This is a bullshit saber rattling event. For years I have posted to these threads with the same comment. Blah, no on is doing shit. Oil bourse, 12 imams, etc...Lots of talk.

[Strelnikov_]

49. Had a lot of people on that Iraq war plan, too

That worked out well.

Kinda funny to still find militarist fanboys on a progressive site at this late stage.

Right, Gravity on . .

On edit: And, no, cursing does not make one smarter. The anger over the war mongering got the better of me, and I have edited my subject line. I apologize.

[Pavulon]

50. Read cobra2, fiasco

see why and how they screwed it up. Or not. If you refuse to see the difference in the REACTION (hypothetical) to an attack vs an unnecessary invasion (real) than we have run out of things to discuss.

Progressive does not mean pacifist. Progressives pumped money to the ISI to bleed the soviets in Afghanistan. Progressives funded the killings of communists in latin america and in greece. EDIT: Politicians of all stripes have taken america to war, in public and in private. I assume "progressive" to you means Democrats. One of the two parties that have any real political power in the US.

So please don't patronize me.

Bottom line if Iran starts a war by kidnapping navy personnel or shooting at something they shouldn't there will be a very harsh response from the US and the countries bound to defend it in the event it is attacked.

Again these threads are common and all end the same way. Nothing happens, except more saber rattling. Do a search.

[Strelnikov_]

54. The OP regards Iran's response to their being attacked first

Outside of an IRG commander going off-script, there is little chance of them initiating military action, since they are playing for the high ground on the Muslim street, which could be somewhat important considering 80% of the worlds remaining petroleum reserves are in Muslim countries.

So, what is up with all the Iran first strike blather?

[Pavulon]

66. None from me..(nt)

[independentpiney]

52. The RG commander is talking about a response to a US first strike

I seriously doubt a US preemptive strike is going to be done with NATO or UN backing. And the 'Muslim street' won't matter, but the European street will. Trying to invoke NATO or any other mutual defense pacts isn't going to work. Agreed, in total unrestricted warfare like you're talking about it would be days or weeks, but how do you think that's going to go over internationally? Where would it leave us as a country? It's totally unacceptable to any sane person.

[Pavulon]

53. My posts cover defense response only

Attacking Iran serves no interest of the United States. Sure we have the ability to do that, but it would be a terrible mistake.

Your post is correct on all points.

[independentpiney]

55. Unfortunately the Chimp in Chief and Cheney don't serve the interests of the United States either

And while I agree with you that there's an over-reaction to a lot of Iran related stories; barring the military brass refusing orders, I wouldn't be too confident the order might not be given. The Iranians sabre-rattle, but I don't doubt their response to even a limited strike would be along the lines of what the RG commander says. I sure wouldn't gamble it, but bush is stupid enough to.

[bmbmd]

65. Strategic?

Indiscriminate is more like it. Hawks have been chomping at the bit to reduce a middle=-eastern country to dust, this is their opportunity.

[NYC]

72. Isnt't that like Shock & Awe?

How many bombs did we drop on Iraq the first day?

[Pavulon]

73. Not as many as would drop in response to an attack

Pretty much anything that could would begin attacking Iran. Shock and awe is a silly term. What the air force did in GW1 doesn't have a pet name.

[Dover]

58. Iran has a defense alliance with Syria....they have linked arms (pun intended).n/t

[Doctor_J]

60. You mean like Iraq wouldn;t fight for long? The Cakewalk?

turn off Rush, Jean.

[Progressive Friend]

76. "They wouldn't fight for long." --- LOL, just like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Seriously, are you George W. Bush in real life?

[niyad]

3. bush's press agent doing the usual fea mongering?

[rodeodance]

8. IraN said this.

[Purveyor]

4. Actually I believe this to be true. They've had years to prepare after

witnessing the illegal invasion of Iraq and the sabre rattling coming out of DC and israel.

Such a massive launch would render any missile defense system practically useless.

[harun]

82. They have been preparing for it since the day after the revolution

And the Western powers have done nothing to show them this preparation was for naught.

[tuckessee]

6. Bye bye flat tops!

I imagine 11,000 rockets would overwhelm the carriers' defensive systems. Scratch two or three of them.

Might be a good idea to pre-buy some gold star flags. There's gonna be a shortage of them if the US starts its jihad against Iran.

[Pavulon]

9. Dude..

Some people are actually giddy about the possibility of this. Come on. Hopefully no one will start a war. However, a carrier is deemed a strategic nuclear asset. Besides that, there is no reason for a carrier to be within range of Iran.

Again hopefully no one will start a war, Iran or us. This government (both sides) pecker waggling is getting old.

[tuckessee]

18. It's not just getting old, it's getting extremely dangerous.

Iran is considerably more militarily capable than the opponents America has chosen to start wars with in the past 60 years.

Americans had better prepare themselves for a stout fight and a flow of US-bound body bags the likes of which they haven't seen since WW2.

If the US starts or provokes a war with Iran, it ain't gonna be any cakewalk. I doubt the US can handle the kind of casualities they'll take without going nuts and eventually nuking Iran.

Americans need to know what they're getting into.

[Pavulon]

21. No. That is incorrect

Other wars were backed by the USSR and supplied with soviet personnel and equipment. Iran is a 3rd world economy. It is a net importer of gasoline and has no chance in a war it provokes with any western power. Never mind the US.

Now, I truly hope nothing happens, but if Iran starts a war the outcome is already determined. No nukes are required to obliterate that country.

Iran fought a ten year war with the army we destroyed in two weeks. The us is bad at fighting insurgent wars against people in funny uniforms. We are quite good at destroying traditional armies, especially those equipped by russia. Considering we spent trillions building a system for that single purpose.

There is already an order of battle drawn up in the event of an iranian attack. It would include massive sustained air strikes. Not shock and awe, 4000 sorties a day sustained targeting anything of any value.

Again, I believe this is saber rattling and of no concern. Hopefully we are not getting into anything.

[acmavm]

22. Did no one tell you who the President had as a houseguest last week?

Do you think Iran is isolated and without allies?

[Pavulon]

24. No news of a signed treaty

promising military support under any circumstance. Look, I don't think the US is going to attack iran.. These threads pop up all the time. Oil bourse, 12 imams, blah..Neither side benefits.

However in the event Iran attacks the US there are signed treaties that cover that. NATO covers that event. Thad is a bad thing for Iran to do. Really dumb.

However, laboring under the assumption that presidents can be full of shit, but smart people can be present in the military and DOD, I think Iran and the US will make no moves.

[acmavm]

25. When did Iran threaten to attack the US?

[Pavulon]

26. When did the US threaten to attack Iran?

they never just come out and say it. It is always veiled threats. On both sides.

[acmavm]

29. Don't be disingenuous. Do you not recognize the exact same words

and propaganda being used against Iran as was used (and it was lies of course) to justify 'Shock and Awe' against Iran.

I won't argue with you. I'll just sit here and shake my head and repeat over and over and over again 'no wonder we're in the fix we're in'.

[Amonester]

31. 'shock and awful' was used against IraQ

yes i know, no need to edit 'cuz the typo is obvious.

i just wanted to make sure all possible new lurkers would know about it.

it can become 'confusing' sometimes.

the chickenhawks want to start ww3 for oil and sit in their bunkers while we'll go the fried-chicken way...

[Pavulon]

37. This runs back to Beirut

so we can agree ot disagree. We do seem to agree that a war is bad for all parties.

[PaulaFarrell]

62. Iran fought a 10-year war with an army which was backed by the US

The only way that Iraq defeated Iran was with US backing and equipment and Saudi money. And of course, the use of chemical weapons. Even then, Iraq actually won nothing at all. So your comparison is not really apt. It's obvious the US has bigger guns and better bombs. But that only counts for a while. At some point, you have to use ground troops, and if the Iraq-Iran war was anything to go by, we do not want to be fighting these people. They were, certainly in that war, happy to die and in many, many instances actually hoping to be 'martyred'. I think if we invaded Iran, we would find the Iraqi insurgency tame by comparison. So yeah, we could destroy all the buildings. but them what?


BTW, how is Iran supposed to be provoking a war? All I hear is them saying they'd defend themselves.

[TheLastMohican]

63. What a load of horse-crap

Arabs are not very good fighters conventionally speaking, but Iranians are no Arabs but Persians.

Tell me how good the US fought against a traditional North Korean and Vietnamese armies - "especially equipped by Soveit Union" you meant?
Both wars with high casualties on the american side - a stand off in Korea and pull out from Vietnam.

And no, Iran adventure won't be fun, especially with Iran possessing Moskit AS missiles and TOR-1M AA complexes. They might even have some surprises like S-300 up the sleeve, we never know.


Seems like a "Cold Warrior" hasn't died in you, heh?

[Pavulon]

69. Quite simply

it has nothing to do with arab or persian, or russian, or french.

In all those wars the us inflicted massive casualties, millions against the chinese, after they invaded. (because we destroyed the communist north's army). North Korea is starving, S. Korea is a massive economy.

In Vietnam the us killed millions as well.

However the communists in Vietnam were directly backed and supplied with state of the art soviet weapon systems.

The harbors bringing in supplies were never destroyed. The north was not systematically bombed. We fought a proxy war with very limited rules. However the USSR was gone in 20 years, and I can use AMEX at the Hilton in Hanoi.

Vietnam was a proxy war, like the Russian-Afghanistan war we bled the russians there. Reverse situation of vietnam.

In the event Iran starts a war the russian weapons they field will be irrelevant. Hopefully Iran will not start a war.

[TheLastMohican]

78. I guess you missed the whole point of this thread

It says, IF PROVOKED, Iran will use everything in their arsenal for the defense.
I can't blame them.

US reminds a rabid monkey with live granade in hand.

[rodeodance]

7. our troops in IRaQ bases would be sitting ducks

[Amonester]

10. like darth cheney and co from the pnac asylum care...

they want their oil and they want it

now

(or as soon as they'll feel like gambling on the end of times bull)

[Buns_of_Fire]

64. I can hear Jim Morrison singing that in the background...

We want your oil and we want it...............

now...

Now?

NOW!

...

This is the end, the only end, my friend...

I dunno. I don't see Ahmadinejad as being stupid enough to pre-emptively attack American forces in the area. Maybe he's insane, but I don't think he's stupid.

, on the other hand, I see as insane and stupid. (And I think he'd really enjoy wearing one of Jim's skin-tight leather outfits on the deck of an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished 2".)

[allisonthegreat]

70. Seriously???

With Jim Morrison out of the equation where are we to go? lol! No. It is a scary thing! No winners here and no sense does any of this make. Iraq still doesn't make good sense.

[Strelnikov_]

11. And they will be targeting the Gulf oil production, the Achilles Heel

of United States.


He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Muah'dib


All data 2005.

- The Persian Gulf represents nearly 50% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The vast majority of this resource passes through 6 to 8 major facilities (one facility in KSA alone processes 60% of its petroleum).

- If Iran is attacked in such a way as to threaten the continuity of the regime, they will use their substantial missile inventory in taking out these facilities (I do not believe they will target Israel, as it would have no strategic purpose, whereas targeting the gulf energy infrastructure would strike a mortal blow against the attacking western economies, in particular the US, as I discuss below).

- The US imports ~ 12.4 Mbbl/dy (60% of total consumption) of petroleum which represents around 29% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The next largest petroleum importers (Japan 5.2, China 3.1, Germany 2.4, South Korea 2.2, France 1.9) all have substantial dollar reserves and are significant exporters of finished goods. Basically, we will be outbid on much of what remains of the worlds petroleum export market post attack, as these countries use their export capacity in finished goods to purchase petroleum from Russia, Nigeria, Norway, and Venezuela.

- In the weeks following destruction of the Persian Gulf oil export market, the US will probably see 2/3rds of its imports sold to higher bidders, leaving us with about 60% of the petroleum supply we had pre-attack.

- Approx. 42% of US petroleum is used for personal transport, 22% for commercial transport (trucks that carry food to the stores, etc.). I will leave it to the reader as to the impact a nearly overnight loss of 40% of the US petroleum supply will have to the economy (not to mention the impact due to the collapse of the petrodollar system).

- Russia, India and China will take a pass. Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf petroleum goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower. China and India will dig in (as they consume much less petroleum), weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals for rebuilding the gulf.

- In conclusion, Iran is not toothless. We can physically destroy the country of Iran. There is a good chance they can destroy our economy and begin the process of petrocollapse, ultimately leading to the destruction of a greatly weakened US in a few decades.

So, who wins?


My life fades, the vision dims, all that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams, this wasted land. But most of all, I remember the Road Warrior. The man we called Max.

To understand who he was you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel, and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel.

Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They had built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered, and stopped. Their leaders talked, and talked, and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear.

Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage, would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice.

And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed, men like Max, the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine he lost everything. He became a shell of a man, a burnt-out desolate man. A man haunted by the demons in his past. A man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again.

Opening Dialog, “The Road Warrior”, 1981

A movie that seems more prescient every day.

++++++++++++++=

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html

All in Mbbl/dy

Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2005

Saudi Arabia 9.1
Russia 6.7
Norway 2.7
Iran 2.6
United Arab Emirates 2.4
Nigeria 2.3
Kuwait 2.3
Venezuela 2.2
Algeria 1.8
Mexico 1.7
Libya 1.5
Iraq 1.3
Angola 1.2
Kazakhstan 1.1
Qatar 1.0

=====

Above represents 39.9 Mbbl/dy of 42 Mbbl/dy world export market
18.7 Mbbl/dy of above in Persian Gulf region

Top World Oil Net Importers, 2005

United States 12.4
Japan 5.2
China 3.1
Germany 2.4
South Korea 2.2
France 1.9
India 1.7
Italy 1.6
Spain 1.6
Taiwan 1.0


Top World Oil Consumers, 2005 (Domestic production in parans.)

United States 20.7 (8.3 - 40%)
China 6.9 (3.8 - 55%)
Japan 5.4 (0.2 - 4%)
Russia 2.8
Germany 2.6
India 2.6
Canada 2.3
Brazil 2.2
Korea, South 2.2
Mexico 2.1
France 2.0
Saudi Arabia 2.0

[Pavulon]

12. We import from

Canada-mexico-venez-then saudi..

No one benefits from this scenario. Idiots on all sides, running their mouths.

[Strelnikov_]

14. Didn't even read what I posted, did you.

Yes, I am well aware of who we import from.

You are obviously not aware that petroleum is a fungible commodity. What are we going to use to outbid China, the EU, Japan, South Korea in what would be left of the export market? Our export capacity in finished goods?


And are you honestly telling me that there is not a chance of the complex/fractured command and control network in Iran breaking down with resultant 'overreaction' if we push things too far?

[Pavulon]

19. That would be a very bad thing

for all involved. Yes it oil a commodity, however Iran is over staring its capability. If Iran was to make a first strike against the US or Israel that would be very bad for the people living there.

Kidnapping naval personnel for example would start a war. Any attack on a us vessel or aircraft would get an instant response.

Hopefully all sides will keep calm. The US has plenty of practice with the USSR, playing these games. Iran, maybe not.

The US economy drives the economies of those nations. China's economy is DIRECTLY tied to ours.

[Strelnikov_]

33. 1) "Iran is attacked in such a way as to threaten the continuity of the regime"

as I noted is a far cry from "Iran was to make a first strike against the US or Israel"


2) "China's economy is DIRECTLY tied to ours" - China's economy is tied to ours at the moment because it is convenient to China. If the scenario I have laid out occurs, China can just as easily turn around and start selling their finished goods to Russia and Venezuela for oil. Also, I can not escape this feeling that China is playing us on the long con just like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2038254&mesg_id=2038254">Vlad.

Yes, the nations of Europe in the early 20th Century had similar economic integration, and they never went to war. Oh, wait . . .

Nineteen-ten was peaceful and prosperous, with the second round of the Moroccan crises and Balkan wars still to come. A new book, "The Great Illusion" by Norman Angell was just published, which proved that war was impossible. By impressive examples and incontrovertible argument Angell showed that that in the present financial and economic interdependence of nations, the victor would suffer equally with the vanquished; therefore war had become unprofitable; therefore no nation would be so foolish to start one. Already translated into eleven languages, "The Great Illusion" had become a cult. At the universities, in Manchester, Glasgow, and other industrial cities, more than forty study groups of true believers had formed, dedicated to propagating it's dogma.

- From "The Guns Of August" by Barbara Tuchman


3) "Iran is over stating its capability" - Yes, like all nations they overstate their capability. The United States is the market leader (with the exception of nuclear) in overstated capability (re: Iraq).

But at no time in history has a relatively weak nation had the ability to bring a much stronger one to it's knees without attacking it's homeland.

The petroleum supply chain is one large machine. Like any machine, it is only as durable as it's most vulnerable component (the processing/pumping stations just upstream of the docks).

Like imported stone was to the Polynesians on Mangareva, ball bearings to the Nazi war effort, imported oil is our Achilles heel, our 'ball bearing plant'.


Now, off to see if I was successful in adjusting my bicycle derailleur. I think I'm going to be using it a lot, soon.

[Pavulon]

39. A careful study of history

would reveal many such instances. Algeria, and other colonial wars were quite similar to this.

David Galula is the best place to start.

Insurgency is very effective, a war for the population is nothing new.

Iran is 3rd world. They are only news because of their leader and his mouth. Like Chavez they are irrelevant to the larger course of foreign policy.

US capacity is designed to destroy nations and their toys, like the GW1. It is not designed for an insurgency. The capacity is well documented and is quite capable of carrying out the role it was designed for. Air and naval assets are idle.

As for Iraq, the US holds the ground, can move freely and takes casualties that are "acceptable" in a war. Please do not read that as my position, I do not support the war. However as a rational person do not believe the Iraq war will destroy the US military.

Again the oil we import is geographically close. The world economy is heavily invested in ours. Any event that damages our economy will have immediate world wide impact.
Again, this is not a supportive position for war, but in a defensive role the us has nothing to worry about from iran.

[Strelnikov_]

41. "I do not support the war"

Right.

Why is it that I doubt someone who calls weapons 'toys' and waxes rhapsodic about the wonders of our military.


As usual, it is a waste of time. People either get the concept of the fragility of interconnected complex systems, or they don't.


The participants in the 'Oil Shockwave' wargaming events got it, though, one of whom was Robert Gates, that well known liberal.

And as for your 'oil we import is geographically close', the only two I see that we can count on are Canada and Mexico, the second of which production is crashing.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

The balance, particularly Venezuela, will be selling to the highest bidder.

[Pavulon]

44. Nothing new under the sun...

in your response. Addressing me rather than the content of the post, and you narrow perception of the function of a commodity in a demand driven market.

[Strelnikov_]

46. "Addressing me rather than the content of the post"

Oh, so my pointing out that only a fraction of our imports was geographically close was not addressing the content of your post.

And, praytell, what do you think is going to happen to said 'demand driven market' when a mandatory commodity falls into short supply practically overnight? Everybody run out and buy electric cars? Electrify the interstate 'warehouse on wheels' overnight?

[Psephos]

77. I was with you until this post, loindelrio

Pavulon has a different opinion, which is the whole point of a board. Sometimes I agree with Pavulon, sometimes not, but his posts are always thoughtful and worth reading, and I have yet to see him lean on ad hominem as a crutch for weak arguments.

I thought your original post was stimulating and insightful. Now I wonder what parts of it have been shaped by service to ideology rather than reason. When you started dissing Pavulon rather than his arguments, you lost the debate by your own hand.

[arendt]

56. This is one of the most intelligent sub-threads I have seen in a long while at DU...

People are actually debating each other, with FACTS, instead of just sneering and sniping.

Thanks for actually talking about strategic concepts. I am starved for strategy. I am utterly
sick of horse-race tactics and nitpicking name-calling matches.

This sub-thread is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

arendt

[Palladin]

68. Bravo!

I would hope you can get your analysis and poetry out to the whole world.

[fshrink]

71. Less spectacularly,

the existence of a center of power *anywhere* in the ME represents an equivalent threat to US capitalistic supremacy as the one described in your scenario. Because such an existence invariably leads to a prominent economic position for the EU. Which our strategists (not the imbeciles in front of the cameras) know full well. Which also directly determined the invasion of Iraq and explained EU's general lack of support better than "moral" or political considerations.
The only way of protecting US capitalistic supremacy is to maintain the ME in a destabilized state. If there is a dominating power in the area, this will naturally lead to stabilization and therefore constitute a threat.
As a result, since Iran seems to have taken over such leadership, I am afraid that the option of a military intervention is indeed very real. Iran's retaliation, as you describe, would also destabilize the ME for a very long time. The cost would be indeed heavy, again as you describe, but could possibly be managed through various means.

[Strelnikov_]

13. This is why Seymour Hirsch's latest article was worrisome

if true.

Previously, the Kabuki dance was for us to pound their 'nuclear facilities', most of which were going to be empty bunkers (decoys).

The US leadership thumps their chest and declares victory.

The Iranian leadership thumps their chest and declares victory in standing up to the 'great satan'.

And both sets of leadership goes back to their day job, oppressing and looting the people of their respective countries.


Now, with the allegation that they are going to directly target the IRG, this greatly increases the chance of a local commander going off script. Or, if the US pushes the attack too far, Iranian leadership adopting a use it or lose it mentality.

[Gregorian]

15. But we're broke.

How does one fight a war without money?

And also, can't we just have health care instead of war? YOU ASSHOLES!



Iran has to do what Iran has to do. What would one expect? For them to sit idly while we bomb them? I'm all for peace, but this is not about Iran. This is about the Bush shithole administration.

[frylock]

20. how does one fight a war without money?

you just print more.

[Gregorian]

27. Yes, but...

From my limited knowledge of economics, doesn't that require... oh dear... I really know nothing about economics. I hate it.

I suppose you're right. I was going to ask about other countries and their involvement in our economy. I recall something about treasury bills versus printing of money. One or the other.

Nightmare for all.

[Hawkowl]

79. Not necessarily

WWII pulled the world out of a global depression. A non-nuclear WWIII would probably create vast amounts of wealth by manufacturing weapons and achieving full employment with the prerequisite draft, and the subsequent labor shortage at home which would give well paying jobs to a very great many people. World Wars are truly the greatest economic engines that mankind has ever implemented, simply by the fact that everyone has a job. All of FDR's programs weren't able to end the Great Depression but WWII did. From the German standpoint, they did print money in the 1930's and it led to hyperinflation and the rise of Adolf Hitler. Who, salvaged the economy by....starting WWII.

War is good for business. Period. I think that is why BushCo is deliberately sabotaging the economy by destroying the middle class. Simply to start WWIII where they and their corporate masters can make more money than even they can dream of.

[happyslug]

83. That is the biggest fallacy of WWII

The worse year for the Depression (in the US) was 1938, by 1939 the US was well on it way to full recovery from the Depression (By 1941 you had storages of labor in the US, which is one of the reason FDR started the Draft in 1941). This happened to Germany in 1934, in Japan in 1936, in France and England a little later than Germany but before the US. The Soviet Union had also suffered in the Depression (Through never admitted) but even it was on it way up by the time of the show trials of 1938. In fact the chief reason Hitler went to war in 1939 was, while the German army needed another two years to get up to full strength, France and England would need three, but by the time Germany was at full strength, England and France would be stronger in comparison to Germany then France and England was in 1939 i.e. Hitler had a window of Opportunity till France and England grew strong enough to stop him. That window was 1939-1940, by 1941 France and England could defeat Germany (in fact by 1941 Military expenditure of England was exceeding Germany, but by that time France had fallen).

My point was the world had recovered from the Great Depression by the start of WWII. WWII was NOT needed to get us out of the Depression. In fact the ending of the Depression meant that support for Hitler's rules (i.e. tyranny to protect Corporations) was no longer needed by even Germany (Thus the German Army plot to kill Hitler in 1938, that failed without Hitler finding out about it, unlike the 1944 plot almost killed Hitler, but for which many Germans paid the price with their lives).

People like to think WWII ended the Depression but the facts do NOT support that conclusion, they follow each other, but one did not end the other.

[Hawkowl]

84. I respectfully disagree

The world had not recovered from the Great Depression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that WWII was necessary to generate full employment and hence end the depression. What I'm saying is that massive government employment programs (some may call it socialism) was needed to end the depression. War just is easier--not better.

And storages of labor is not the reason countries need a draft. Perhaps it simply is the fact people need to be forced away from their families to die overseas, in foreign lands, regardless of their employment situation at home. Today is a similar situation. The military is begging for recruits, yet unemployment, if measured the same way as under Reagan, is in the neighborhood of 15%. War just isn't a voluntary option for most rational humans.

[Lautremont]

16. That's a lot of rockets.

[roamer65]

23. ...and you can bet a good amount of them...

would send the Saudis oilfields up into flames.

[Deja Q]

28. With luck, their missiles were made in China, and will explode shortly after being launched.

:shrug:

Putin (you know, the guy who poisons his own people) doesn't make for a convincing champion for Iran either.

[jimlup]

30. US won't attack Iran unless the chimp is insane... Oh wait!

While this is nothing but typical bellicose rhetoric, there are plenty of reasons why a US attack on Iran would be a tremendous mistake. So catastrophic that even the Bush administration should see that.

On the other hand, these people have shown themselves to be irrational in the past, they shouldn't be trusted with the national security and they should be impeached before they can do more damage like attacking Iran.

If we see Generals start to suddenly resign, then we'll know its on. That will be the signal of coming catastrophe. I believe cooler heads will prevail but who knows?

[NutmegYankee]

32. *Yawn* Look at WWI.

One side would continuously shell the opposing sides trenches for days straight, then charge in thinking, HAH, nobody could have survived that, and what do you know, the opposing side would pop out of their hiding places almost fully intact and defend.

[Pavulon]

38. Or GW1

where the US air force killed 30 - 40,000 republican guard troops in 24 hours.

There is a very different technology at work. Hopefully it will not be used.

[NutmegYankee]

57. Rockets are unguided.

All Iran would do is rain death down on the civilians as the rockets fall randomly, making the Bush admin ,with its pinpoint airstrikes, look far better.

Dumb Option. Forces in the gulf region could just seek cover and wait it out. In the meantime, Iranian positions get pounded from the air and via missiles (which actually are guided).

Rockets only work if you intend to stop a land attack.

[yava]

61. attack iran 3rd world power

two points:
- China was 3rd world not long ago and so was Russia before Stalin, so classing nations by wealth in trms of military response may not be accurate outside rich coutries.
- Nuclear technonolgy is now nearly a century old and Iran can do it.
The question is the respnse: China has it, Pakistan and India have it and Isreal has it.
Question: why do we want to destroy Iran and our economy if they go that way?
If they have a couple of bombs, like Chirac said, why is that a real problem given that if they ever even think of using it they will have x100 blown on them?
As interesting as this debate here on DU may be, I think its unreal.

[yowzayowzayowza]

36. Or perhaps an asymetric response...

...100 innocent deaths from the US attack results in 100 suicide-bombers in US malls...
...Iranian trading partner gets ticked off and 'loses' track of a container of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles that mysteriously turn up in IraQ....

Quite the hornets nest!

[lovuian]

48. This guy is smart and he warns if Iran goes so does lots of

countries and people

Saudia Arabia Kuwait and bahrain know what he means

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lQXt-G8iO8

[Strelnikov_]

51. But . . but . .

Our glorious military is supposed to be able to just brush them aside.

What is Bahrain worried about?

[Dover]

59. Attacking Iran means also having to attack Syria.....they have a defense agreement.

And who knows where Russia, China and other potential allies with Iran lie. If we attacked I feel sure we'd find out. And all hell would break loose.

Actually I think what's going on with Turkey is even more urgent as a predictor to how the dominoes will fall.

[scarface2004]

67. good for them...keep strong iran!!!!

i hope they kick our ass...take us over..enslave us all!!

[NutmegYankee]

75. WTF?

enslave us all? :wtf: :banghead:

[hogwyld]

81. Excuse me?

Maybe you want to live in some sharia law dominated country, but not me. Thanks.

[Xenotime]

74. I'm willing to bet we don't have a defense for that!

[Hawkowl]

80. Block the straits of Hormuz

Fire some of those rockets at the ships in the Gulf and by sinking a few in the Straits of Hormuz, Iran would block the entire supply of mideast oil to the world. It would certainly cripple the world economy in the short term.