The US will lose a war with Iran.

[Postman]

Because it will not only be Iran they need to fight.

It is obvious to anyone who digs deep enough in the US and obvious to all those who do not live in the US and has an actual free press vis-a-vis propaganda agencies, what the US and Israel are doing are provoking another unjust war.

If you think 9/11 was awful, and it was, God help the American people for the wrath of revenge they may have unleashed in the Middle East.

You can't shit on people and not expect retaliation.

[saltpoint]

1. God wants us to have that oil, Postman. Just keep that in mind

and let's all rally behind President Bush.

[Cary]

2. The Bush Administration. . .

over estimated their own skill.

[long_green]

3. What sort of war?

As of now, we barely have the resources to even begin a land war with Iran. A noisy, messy, ultimately unsuccessful air war is more our speed.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. If for no other reason than every Arab/Muslim from around the world.......

....would unleash a campaign of absolute and utter destruction on Israel and the US interests around the world. There is no doubt at least twice as many Arabs/Muslims in the world as there are Jews and Christians put together. The Muslims in the US would no doubt be up in arms as well so we're talking a real blood bath here.

[Recursion]

24. btw, Christians outnumber Muslims

There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, and roughly 1.5 billion Muslims. Jews are about 16 million which isn't even statistically significant compared to the first two populations.

[Minnesota Libra]

36. Did you notice................

....I combined Arab and Muslims by writing "....Arab/Muslim...."?

If you're going to speak just of Muslims then yes Christianity outnumbers them.

But in combining Arabs and Muslims - who would not hesitated to unite in a fight against Christianity/Jews - then I'd say the Muslims/Arabs or Arabs/Muslims outnumber the Christians/Americans/Jews.

Just so we understand what I combined and why, I will repeat that Arabs and Muslims, from around the world wouldn't hesitated to unite in a Jihad against Americans, Christians, and Jews. That uniting of Arabs and Muslims could easily produce a massacre of anyone that isn't Arab or Muslim.

:eyes:

[Recursion]

37. I did notice, but I don't think it changes the numbers

There are about 30 million Arab Christians worldwide, and about half a million Arab Jews. That takes 30.5 million from the Christian/Jewish total of 2 billion, and adds them to the Muslim total of about 1.5 billion. Still not much of an impact.

[Minnesota Libra]

39. There are Muslims in every country of this world, there are not...........

.....Chritians in every country. There are Arab Christians who would stay Arab CHRISTIAN if a world wide Jihad was issued? I wouldn't want to stake my life on that one.

[Mir]

5. As long as

we keep sending our boys half way around the planet to struggle, suffer and die in the heat and the dirt in pursuit to another country's interests, then we're on the right track however we decide to do it.

[Postman]

7. What?

eom

[Clark2008]

9. Mir is saying that we keep nosing into the Middle East on

behalf of Israel as a result of the huge AIPAC lobby in our Congress.

Which, of course, is true.

It's not just about the oil and the corporate contracts - it's also about the sphere of militant Israeli influence (not Jewish, btw - the influence is governmental, not religious or ethnic).

[Postman]

10. Thank you. I concur. The tail is wagging the dog.

eom

[JuniperLea]

32. Meanwhile, all our troops and National Guard are over there

And we are sitting ducks.

[Poll_Blind]

6. One nuke on an arab country and they'll let Israel continue to do whatever

...it wants. Don't think that's off the table. Hawks in both the U.S. and Israeli governments would love to drop just a little nuke, maybe in Syria, maybe in Iran, just to let them know who's boss. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can win ground wars with Syria or Iran. Air wars, doubtful in the long run as well. They know this, everyone knows this.

  It would also cause the Russians and Chinese to back off a bit and reconsider support for the arab countries. Of course, if they don't, the front lines of a very old ideological battle will be moving that much closer to them but that's a decision they'll have to make.

PB

[Postman]

8. "a little nuke" still yields radiation...

is that like "a little pregnant"?

[Poll_Blind]

11. I don't disagree on that. However, I believe it's arguable that the...

...Israeli government doesn't give a lick about the after-effects of the use of such a deadly weapon. Some of this is directly against Syria and Iran, but some of it is posturing for the "enemies around the corner": Russia & China.

PB

[Recursion]

25. I'm no Israel apologist, but...

...you have to keep in mind that in the past year they've seen the governments in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon take on parties who deny Israel's right to exist as a state. A state facing an existential threat like that can't always afford niceties like worrying about whether their neighbors will have radiation sickness for decades.

[Poll_Blind]

41. You might be suprised but I agree completely. What I'm speaking...

...to, specifically, is the desire by NeoCons and ZionCons to use this conflict as a tool to achieve a particular political outcome regardless of the stated reasons for the conflict itself.

PB

[dysfunctional press]

12. russia & china have nothing to fear from us-

WE should be afraid of driving the two of them into an alliance- ultimately with them and the rest of the world on one side, us and israel on the other.

[shadowknows69]

14. That's pretty much how the endtimers see the final game

used to be one, I know.

[sweetheart]

21. A nuke on every country, a chicken in every pot,

An artillery shell in every baby, a bullet in every brain,
a bomb in every ballot box, a stupid fool on every TV,
An idiot in every congressional seat,
a densly cynical hatred as cultural merit,
a nuke on every country,
a chiken in every pot...

[Drewskie]

13. depends on what they try to do...

If they just want to take out the missile program they could do that and the operation would be a success. No need to invade with ground troops.

[Postman]

23. you're dreaming..

have you read any of Sy Hersch's articles?

They're not even sure there IS a "missile program" (which I take it that you mean a uranium enrichment for weapons program)

The General's have told them it's not possible to destroy them.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Postman]

42. What a class act. Zig Heil !!

Try reading about a subject before showing us how clueless you are.

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Subtle distinction here

Iran has been making a big deal about how well buried their nuclear facilities are. that is a two edged sword. While making it difficult/impossible to destroy from the air, it also makes them easier to find.

As a practical matter, limited airborne assault against Iranian nuclear facilities was IMO the most likely option if the US or Europe was going to use force with Iran on the nuclear issue. Go in and hold ground just long enough to capture and remove data and equipment, destroying that which can not be moved.

My own pet theory is what is going on now, that has all been pushed aside. Iran will lie low through all of this in terms of saber rattling and just toss in the occasional fatwa, hoping this will allow them to keep up their nuclear program quietly.

[rwenos]

15. Strategic Difficulties Conquering Iran

I read a fair amount of WW2 history, and if it shows anything, it shows the US Military is spectacularly good at tank warfare in open country. Gulf War I confirmed this. The Iraq invasion confirmed it again.

My read of the topograph of Iran is that it's mountainous in the south, mountainous in the north, and has a large plain in the middle. The cities are almost all in the mountainous regions. Tehran is hard to get to.

Also, Iran (not an Arab country), has a long history of repelling invaders. Its populace is wealthier and better educated than Iraq. It is a MORE POWERFUL COUNTRY. It has a loyal young population who has shown they will fight fearlessly.

Without a nuke, this would be a messy, messy war. Lots of body bags. Lots of expense. Lots of blown up M1A1 tanks. Lots of shot-down F-117's and B2's.

The F-117s are only $125 million EACH. The B2's are only $800 million EACH. The M1A1's are only $7.5 million EACH. And the American soldiers . . . priceless.

This is a BAD idea.

[deaniac21]

16. I don't disagree with what you are saying except that I'm not

too clear on what they would be using to shoot down F-117's and B-2's.

[rwenos]

17. Radar-Guided Surface-to-Air Missiles

And anti-aircraft radar.

Just like we would if they ran an air raid over Los Angeles or Seattle.

That stuff is available on the open market, and arms dealers are waiting in line to sell those technologies to the highest bidder.

Hell, we publish it in Aviation Weekly.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. Unlike the middle east, US cities are not defended by SAMs.

Instead we use fighters (USAF, USN, ANG).

Iraq had a better IADS than Iran does. If airstikes are launched, Iranian SAMs won't be an issue

[Skarbrowe]

18. Maybe Bush thinks he is destined to bring about Armageddon..like NOW.

That's an insane thought I know. I've been feeling a bit insane since December of 2000.

Time to tend to your garden.

[htuttle]

20. Iran has state of the art anti-aircraft systems

Far, far removed from those old 'telephone wire' based ones that Saddam had. They have a ton of cash, and plenty of places to spend it.

And when was the last time we fought against a country with a functioning air force? How much of an anti-aircraft defense do WE have around the Green Zone, for example?

We underestimate Iran's defenses at our own peril.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. You need to recheck you facts here

or at least take a look at a current version of Janes

[htuttle]

38. Why don't you post the facts I'm wrong on

...instead of merely implying I'm wrong, without actually stating what I'm wrong about.

[Solo_in_MD]

43. Well to start with, you are asserting they have a state of the art

IADS, when in fact Iran has non-upgraded models of export version of Russian SAMs. Easily suppressed via airborne counter measures carried by both Israel and the US. The also have a bifurcated C&C network split between their professional military and the Revolutionary Guard.

[htuttle]

44. Didn't Russia finally deliver those TOR-M1's in June this year?

And isn't it speculated that they also got S-300's to go with them?

I know that there was a rumor that Russia was stalling the delivery of the TOR-M1 systems, but at least one source I'd read (that is unfortunately no longer accessible) said they'd been delivered the first or second week of June this year.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. Not clear if that have been delivered yet.

But even if they were, delivered is not the same as trained up and integrated into their national networks and IADS. Nothing in the trade press about waveforms being heard from them either. They could be staffed by Russian "contractors", but short of that, Iran would be hard pressed to have them effective. Also those were purchased to protect their nuclear sites with fixed emplacements. First time they come up they get DF'd and then rolled back when the attack comes. The US is not the only nation with sufficient standoff capability to do that.

[lectrobyte]

26. They ain't using Romulan cloaking devices, the Serbs or someone

shot down an F-117 a few years ago with AA if I recall correctly.

[Solo_in_MD]

33. Yes the did. Only acknowledged combat loss of a 117

From what made it to the trade press, it was a low tech approach, based on our sloppiness and some luck.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Maybe the same thing the Bosnians used.

But those F-117s and B-2s aren't terribly effective in Iraq.

[bemildred]

19. Sure are not going to win.

Most likely China would "win" if we got in a war with Iran.

[paparush]

22. I think Russia and China will put a stop to action against Iran

China p0wnez our debt and has nukies. Russia has nukies. China needs a steady flow of oil..etc..

[Bushwick Bill]

40. You're right, and don't forget Hugo.

Hugo is buddies with Iran and hates our imperialist adventures at it is. He will cut us off. See how happy Joe sixpack is when he can't fill up the truck.

[bdamomma]

28. I hate to say this but we will get our asses kicked if we do not

get these criminals out of the WH.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. You have missed a couple of things

1) What kind of war/campaign would the US wage against Iran
2) What kind of defenses do you think Iran could but up in those scenarios
3) What would be the US or Israeli military goals?

There is no indication that Israel wants to go up against Iran, or for that matter Syria. If they did, ordinace would already have been dropped. Israel never worries about the niceities.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. Uh, the U.S. has 150,000 nuclear bombs. I don't think so.

We have enough nukes to blow every man, woman and child up 10 times over! We still don't know how many nukes Israel has either. Do we know how many regular bombs Israel has? Do you really think if things get that bad the psycho-in-chief wouldn't use his nuclear arsenal? He's been chomping at the bit to use those ever since he stole the 2000 election.

[htuttle]

46. Nukes didn't help much in Vietnam, did they?

...and they aren't helping much in Iraq today.

If they nuke the oil, they can't sell it (well, not easily, anyway).