the invasion of IRAN

[welshTerrier2]

i just watched Scott Ritter on Democracy Now ... the show will be rerun later today ... it's very worth watching ...

for the record, Ritter did NOT say the US would invade or bomb Iran in June, 2005 ... this has been regularly repeated on DU and Ritter claims his statement was misinterpreted ... what he did say was that in October, 2004, bush asked for plans to be developed to enable the US to bomb Iran by June, 2005 ...

Ritter also said that Russia will vote against authorizing the UN to attack Iran because of WMD development ... he said that when that happens, John Bolton will deliver a speech stating that the US will now take matters into its own hands ... Ritter said he knows people who worked on the speech and he knows what's in it ...

He said that many Americans falsely believe that the US is so overcommitted in Iraq that an attack on Iran will not be possible ... he completely dismissed this kind of thinking ... he said the bush administration is going ahead full steam with its plans to attack Iran ...

Ritter was asked what the Congress is doing about this ... his response: absolutely nothing ... there is no debate taking place on this issue ... btw, he blames bush I and Clinton for the mess in Iraq as much as he blames bush II ...

a couple of days ago, Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations committee ... she was asked by a number of senators about possible military action on both Syrian and Iranian soil ... the senators tried to get her to acknowledge that bush would have to return to the Congress for authorization before he could attack either Syria or Iran ... she refused ... she said that she was not willing to put any restrictions on what bush might choose to do ...

where's the outrage? where's the Congress? where's the media? where are the Democrats? where are we?

[LynnTheDem]

1. An invasion of Iran = end of the US military.

Game over.

For us.

[noahmijo]

2. First the coup in '53 then an invasion?

Something tells me they won't greet US troops with flowers and candy....


Anyways right now it's just speculation. Yea yea we all know the * Crime Family won't stop at anything to get its way, we know * is nothing more than Billy Madison with authority over our armed forces, but thus far it's all just words.

When I will start to seriously become worried is when the boy idiot starts issuing "Iran has 24 hours to comply" type threats...

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. From experience, when he says "24 hours", the attack will have

already begun.

[noahmijo]

6. Hence why I will start to seriously worry

I'm sure you got my point, right now it's all loose talk, albeit legitimate and not without point, still it's just talk.

Not to mention if * starts to beat the war drums again honestly I don't think Americans are going to go into football/cheerleading mode again knowing full well that this time around it might be THEIR ass getting sent or THEIR kids getting sent when a draft gets implemented.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I don't believe we have the manpower to invade Iran.

That means the attack would have to be by bombing, necessitating the use of the super HE bunker-busters or, concievably, small bunker-busting nukes.

If we were to nuke Iran, our uncertain ally in Pakistan would collapse as the populace rose against the government. That would leave Pakistan's nukes in the hands of Islamic radicals.

Sounds like a good plan to me. (sigh)

[carolinalady]

11. Especially now that we have basically let them down since the

earthquake. I look for Al Quiada to step in and provide money to those people. All bets are off.

[LynnTheDem]

19. Don't forget China.

They'd side with Iran.

Actually most the entire world would side with Iran.

And as much as Americans still chant "we're the greatest" crap, we are in fact getting our asses kicked in one of the weakest nations on the planet by a country that has no airforce, no navy, no army and no super-weapons. Iran's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[leveymg]

4. Without the support of the uniformed military, it won't happen.

There's a consensus at the Pentagon about attacking Iran:

*there's no pressing need for it
*it would further erode warfighting readiness worldwide
*it would make US forces vulnerable elsewhere
* we would suffer high regional casualties from a likely counter-attack
* we probably couldn't effectively defend the continental US from a terrorist counter-attack
* the economic impact on the US of a blockade of the Straights of Hormuz would be severe
* there's little or no support internationally for a preemptive attack
* it would strengthen the internal control of Iranian hard-liners
* we would lose far more than we could hope to gain.

Why do it, then?

[welshTerrier2]

8. denial?

Ritter said Bolton's speech about this is already written ... and he said plans for the invasion have already been drawn up ... and Rice said she did not agree bush would have to return to the Congress for authorization ...

you list of "why nots" is a good one but "good ones" have never stopped this administration before ...

[LynnTheDem]

20. "couldn't defend US from a terrorist counter-attack"...rotfl!!!

WE INVADE, WE ATTACK FIRST...and a coutner attack is called terrorist"?

Gee, wonder why they hate us for our arrogance?

*Not leveling this at you, leveymg, the rightwingnuttery would put it exactly that way; we attack = good, anyone defends and counter-attacks = "terrorism".

[leveymg]

25. I was trying to capture the sizzle as well as the steak of the matter.

The irony of the statement wasn't lost on me when I reconstructed the list from memory of several sources. :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

26. The "American superiority complex" is really something, ain't it.

I think it far outstrips the blond/blue-eyed complex the world dealt with not long ago.

[Lasher]

7. You sound like my excellent Senator, Robert C. Byrd

We are being taken to hell in a handbasket, and the handbasket's name is PNAC.

Dubya doesn't have to go to Congress for any authorization. Our stupid Congress gave him a blank check during the runup to the invasion of Iraq. Congress would have to pass legislation to override that, with enough votes to override a certain veto.

I have to agree with Ridder, we have enough resources to attack Iran, even during this Iranian entanglement. Put please permit me to draw a paralell:

I personally have enough resources to walk up to one of those professional wrestlers and smack him in the face. I lack the resources, however, to deal with the reaction that would be certain to follow.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Byrd is right

Rice's comments were outrageous ... but i disagree with your interpretation of the powers bush was granted by the IWR ...

you stated: "Our stupid Congress would have to pass legislation to overrind that, with enough votes to override a certain veto."

but bush was NOT authorized to invade or attack either Syria or Iran ... actions are limited to Iraq ... here's the actual wording of the IWR:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[tatertop]

10. Time to sing the "Going to War Again Rag"

PNAC is going to do it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. * has no more authority for going into Iran than Nixon had

for going into Cambodia.

Does that make you feel any better?

Iran supports Iraqi terrorists > going at the source of Iraqi terror > going after Iran, all while fulfilling the mandate of IWR.

Just need Bolton to push through a resolution tying Iran to Iraqi terror. When the UN refuses to do so, they are obstructionist and we will be forced, regretfully, to do it on our own.

[welshTerrier2]

24. "tying Iran to Iraqi terror"

that's exactly the rational they've started using to justify an attack on Syria ... interestingly though, they've seemed more focussed on WMD in Iran than on "tying Iran to Iraqi terror" ... at least so far ...

in the Senate hearings two days ago, Democrats specifically used the phrase "on Syrian or Iranian soil" ... they were asking Rice to acknowledge that the IWR was NOT sufficient authorization to attack Syria or Iran ... she refused, of course ...

during her questioning, Kerry mentioned that as little as 2% of the insurgency was made up of foreign fighters ... this, of course, suggests that the number of Iranians is much lower than that ... clearly, the argument that Iran comprises a significant threat to stability in Iraq is nonsense ...

but again, Democrats did fine raising the issue with Rice, but what's next? bush will just keep piling on the propaganda about Syria and Iran ... if the Democrats want to avoid more war, or at least want to try to avert more war, they need to make the case to the American people NOW !!

[LynnTheDem]

21. Bloody well said! EXACTLY true, too. We could attack & invade Iran...

and the reaction that is certain to follow would be the deaths of every US sailor on every US ship in the Gulf, the deaths of every US soldier in Iraq, and a very high casualty rate for every US soldier on the ground in Iran, and there is NO WAY whatsoever the US could occupy Iran.

If Pakistan overthrew Mushie, we'd be facing nukes in al Qaeda's hands.

We'd also have China to deal with, and just sheer amount of cannon fodder they could outlast us until the last US soldier was dead.

And that's looking on the positive side.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. An invasion of Iran would be disastrous

Based on our wonderful occupation of Iraq, Iran would require between five and ten times the resources to capture, occupy, and pacify.

We've spent nearly a trillion dollars making a mess of Iraq. With Iran, the price would be more like ten trillion (in three years). Instead of needing 150,000 ground troops, we'd need 500,000 to 1.5 million. The weight of the "arial ordnance" -- bombs -- would be staggering.

We could do it "on the cheap" with some nukes. Yeah. "On the cheap."

A draft would certainly be required. And for what? To extirpate "terrorism" from the Islamic world? We'd fail at that task just going after Iran. It would be necessary to similarly invade and occupy every one of the "Silk Route" nations that contained even a single Mosque. That task would be like Iran times five to ten, itself -- 25 to 100 times as expensive, difficult, and ruinous a task as bringing Iraq to our heel.

It would destroy the USA as well as most of the land(s) on our target list.

We've gone into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, yet we can't even find Osama Bin Laden. A trillion dollars, 2000 American soldiers' lives, and approximately 50,000 civilians whose lives we interrupted have been burned in the pyre of Bush's ambition. It's no longer a case of it not being "worth it". It's a willful campaign of evil.

And it will take decades for we citizens of the USA to pay for the damage and live down the shame.

--p!

[ElectroPrincess]

13. To quote my favorite

comedian, George Carlin, "The Neo-Conservatives are FUCKING NUTS!!!

These bat shit crazy morans MUST be stopped, and soon. Even if we try to bomb Syria, Rice would do well to remember that RUSSIA considers them an ally.

Holy Shit! Stop these bastards ... where are you DEMOCRATIC LEADERS?

[welshTerrier2]

14. that's exactly the main point

can we point to Democrats speaking about the invasion of Syria??? i think this is going to happen very soon ... Syria will happen before Iran ...

and Iran??? the most prominent comment i've seen about Iran came from Barack Obama during the Bolton hearings ... During those hearings, Senator Obama offered these hawkish comments on Iran:

"I would say the policy has been less about patience and more about paralysis--a dangerous situation for a nation such as Iran that is developing nuclear weapons, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and is meddling in Iraq."

This is hardly the kind of "let's avoid war and make damned sure bush has to come back to the Congress for authorization" language our Democrats should be using ...

will the Democrats remain asleep until it's too late??? the time to build a case against invading Syria and Iran is NOW ... and the Democrats are saying nothing or continuing to show America how tough they are by making hawkish remarks ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Strategically, Syria would have to come before Iran.

A fight with Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz, shutting of most oil routes. Holding Syria could leave a pipeline from Iraq to the Mediteranean intact, mitigating that problem.

[killbotfactory]

15. Neocons are insane

And I thought invading Iraq was nuts... Syria and Iran have actual armies that haven't been under sanction and random bombings for a decade.

[LynnTheDem]

22. And they have super-weapons, such as the sunburn.

We'd be so fucked.

[Trish1168]

16. Any attack on Iran would be nuclear

The war college (as Powell said on Barbara Walters) has said there is no military option for Iran. This is why Cheney has already ordered the pentagon to prepare for a nuclear strike on Iran (in the event of another 9/11, which has yet to happen and may not happen....but that may not stop them). This info has been circulating around.

If we do a preventive nuclear strike on Iran, Russia will retaliate.

Fitzy better include Bolton in those indictments.

[LynnTheDem]

23. I'd worry more about Pakistan's nukes in al Qaeda's hands, coz

we attack Iran, and that's gonna be a given; Mushie overthrown, al Qaeda in charge.

[welshTerrier2]

17. Follow-up re: Boxer's email

well, one Democrat is speaking out about the invasion of other countries in the Middle East ... the questions are:
1. will other Democrats join her
2. will the Democratic Party make this a major battle
3. what actions should Democrats take to make this part of the national dialog instead of letting bush "propagandize" the whole Middle East without alternative views being presented?

if Democrats don't make this a campaign NOW, they will again "get rolled" and have no say ...

here's an excerpt from Boxer's email:

In fact, at the same hearing where I took Dr. Rice to task for the Administration's many false statements and changing justifications for the invasion of Iraq, I was extremely distressed to hear her lay out yet another even broader mission for our soldiers -- to remake the Middle East.

Even more unbelievably, Rice insisted that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's mission ever since 9/11. Well that is not what Congress voted for in either the resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it is not what the American people believed to be our goal. The Bush Administration is trying to perpetuate yet another classic "bait and switch," because Congress and the American people would never have supported an open-ended mission to remake the entire Middle East if the President had made his true intentions known up-front.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. This bothers me a bit --

"Even more unbelievably, Rice insisted that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's mission ever since 9/11."

She hasn't read PNAC? This has been the obvious goal from the git go. Did she really not know, or is she just saying that so that the sheeple who flocked behind * can be less embarassed to admit that they were duped?

[welshTerrier2]

30. Rice knows all about PNAC

PNAC documents (before 9/11) argued that it might take some "massive precipitating even like Pearl Harbor" (or words to that effect) to get a buy in from the American people for a Mid-East invasion ...

it's not too surprising that she defensively points to that event as the starting point for administration policy ... of course, it's all part of the big lie ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I meant Ms Boxer.

Her 'unbelievably' comment makes it sound like she has no knowledge of PNAC.

I have no doubt that the entire * cabal is very familiar with PNAC -- it's their game plan.

[Zynx]

29. Sorry, I put no credibility in Scott Ritter.

He doesn't know anything not in the public domain, period. You think this guy has access to inner circle planning in a Republican White House and DoD? And the Russian foreign ministry? I think the FSB might have something to say about that.

Get real.