Is there any way we can stop war on IraN?

[yurbud]

Bush is going through the diplomatic motions, but it's fairly clear it's pro forma, and they have come up with war plans that don't require a lot of troops (at least initially).

If this has anything to do with the euro bourse, we probably can't.

If it is more about just stealing the oil for oil companies, maybe we can.

If your senator or congressman would vote for the war resolution because they actually think Iran would nuke us and risk having their country wiped off the map, they have brain damage that's making them forget the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction standoff. Except if a small country attacked us, it would be Mono Assured Destruction. We could be hurt, but they would definitely be gone.

[Botany]

1. They might be able to bomb Iraq, but a war is out of the ?.

bush, rummy, and company have very effectively broken the military
and stretched it way too thin.

[yurbud]

3. The plan is to strategically bomb and grab the oil fields

and hope that if they hit the mullahs hard enough, the people will turn on them.

Psychology is not these guys strong suit.

[slor]

5. Bombing anything in Iran will...

have the same effect as a Declaration of War. It would stir up such a response, that they will almost certainly begin operations against our troops in Iraq. And remember, the * regime is not being run by any sane people.

[yurbud]

10. yep--makes you wonder who they love more, oil industry or

defense contractors.

"Hmmm...if things calm down, we can pump more oil, but if we kick up shit, we can spend more on weapons and rebuilding contracts fur Halliburton...this is a damn Sophie's choice!"

[ThomWV]

2. There Will Be No War With Iraq

We don't have the ability to fight it and Iran will not start it.

[yurbud]

4. The military doesn't like the idea, but the Bushies want it, have made

it clear all along, and are moving toward doing it.

[leftstreet]

6. Then he'll have to draft the Boy Scouts

We're out of troops.

[yurbud]

7. I agree, but we still have pilots, and they may think people will rally

behind it or they have a motivational terror attack in mind that will give them enough slack to reinstate the draft.

[leftstreet]

12. If they think people will rally behind it, they're nuts.

Or, they just don't know any "people."

[yurbud]

15. I agree, unfortunately, your "or" is true too.

[AndyTiedye]

19. The Media, the Astroturf, & the Diebold Voting Machinez Rally Behind Them

They don't particularly care what the people think.
That's why they've got

We Make Democracy DIE

[leftstreet]

22. True. We're just "human" resources.

nice graphic

:thumbsup:

[mmonk]

11. We have troops stationed all over the world.

They can be redeployed. I think our plan is to bomb them into submission though. Either way, it will fail.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. That didn't stop us from invading Iraq.

It's obvious we didn't/don't have the ability to win a war in Iraq.

Iraq certainly didn't start the war.

It isn't about ability. It's about politics and politicians and they're capitalist masters.

[phusion]

9. There already is a war with Iraq

:)

I think there will be military action of some kind against Iran. It might not be an invasion...And who knows what the consequences will be.

[tatertop]

14. I agree, there will be military action against Iran

Looks to me like that will lead to full scale war.
The US will lose.

[Minstrel Boy]

23. wars are not fought by ground troops alone

US naval and air power is untaxed by the war in Iraq. Not to mention strategic weapons. (You know - nukes. And you do know about the policy changes under Bush regarding first use.)

But here's the problem: who's going to break it to Iran than there can be no ground war? When they're struck, they will throw their army against US forces in Iraq.

[wuushew]

13. Remove Bush from office BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

of course a person's conscience would need to tackle the moral dilemma of committing an immoral act in order to prevent an even greater one.

History shows us that Bush's whole 48 hour ultimatum was bullshit and that given another chance he would gladly commit another death threat against a sovereign nation.

[yurbud]

16. violence is not necessary--it wasn't needed to end the Soviet Union

enough people just stopped following the orders of their corrupt, failed leaders for the whole thing to collapse.

When cops refuse to move people to "free speech zones" or arrest Cindy Sheehan, when generals refuse to follow orders that will lead to countless deaths, it's over.

It sounds like the military is close to that point, and individual soldiers are not "good Germans." I work with kids that age and they don't have the respect for authority that even the baby boomers did. If someone gives them an order to harm other Americans or essentially go on a suicide mission, they won't do it.

[noonwitch]

17. We and the rest of the world can't let Iran have nukes

If they can target the sites where the nukes are being built, I have no problem with a bombing campaign. If we were also involved in some activities to strengthen the resistance in Iran to the mullahs, perhaps the bombing campaign would give the opposition the encouragement they need to take their country back.

Whatever happens, I'm far more supporting of intervention in Iran than in Iraq. Those mullahs are crazy and dangerous and they will use a weapon on Israel if they get a chance. Whatever you think of Israel's government (or the PA, for that matter), a nuclear strike would kill thousands of both Israelis and Palestineans. It would be a tragedy beyond measure.

A good diplomatic strategy for peace between the Israelis and Palestineans might be to point out that they have a mutual enemy in Iran.

[wuushew]

18. Your philosophy would have us attacking the U.S.S.R pre-1949

or can "craziness" be determined by measurable cultural factors and proximity to the state of Israel?

[yurbud]

21. craziness is based on the amount of oil under your feet and how little

we profit from it.

[yurbud]

20. Israel has nukes too, 200 and would retaliate. Do you think Iranians

are retarded?

It would be even more suicidal for them to use them on us--we have 10,000 and have actually used a couple before.

Grow the fuck up and think for a minute.

If Iran used one on us or gave one to terrorists who did or we could even plausibly CLAIM they did, we would nuke them off the map and steal their oil. They know that.


They will likely use any nukes the get the way everybody else does--as a deterrent.

[bananas]

27. Perfect example of why we *WILL* bomb Iran

If people on DU with over 1000 posts "have no problem with a bombing campaign" then the general public will be cheering and applauding it.

Iran isn't building any nukes,
they are ten years from being able to do so.

[Strelnikov_]

29. So. You Really Think Iran Is Willing To Commit Suicide . .

Just to blow up Tel Aviv? Unbelievable.

And I do mean Suicide, as in glass, along with a number of other population centers in the Muslim world.

Iran wants a nuclear DETERRENT to help prevent invasion. Pure and simple.

The rhetoric from the EU is just the Kabuki dance expected. Paul Craig Roberts provided what I think is the best explanation as to why Chindia and Russia are going along. They do not intend to deter the US from taking military action, because they know the US position in the world will be severely weakened as a result of military action.

You may want to consider the following. It is Rense, but I think it highlights the unpredictability of military action.

Day One - The War With Iran

http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

President Bush looked shaken at 2 PM. The scroll below the TV screen reported Persian Gulf nations halting production of oil until the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, announced a freeze in oil deliveries to the US would begin immediately. Tony Blair offered to mediate peace negotiations, between the US and Israel and Iran, but was resoundingly rejected.

By 6 PM, Eastern Standard Time, gas prices had stabilized at just below $10 a gallon. A Citgo station in Texas, near Fort Sam Houston Army base, was firebombed. No one claimed responsibility. Terrorism was not ruled out.

At sunset, the call to prayer--in Tehran, Baghdad, Islamabad, Ankara, Jerusalem, Jakarta, Riyadh--sounded uncannily like the buzzing of enraged bees.

[JohnyCanuck]

24. We could very well see nukes deployed against Iran as well.

Wouldn't be at at all surprised if some of those Pentagon generals and the weapons designer boffins and egg heads are just itching to try out their new bunker buster nukes under operational conditions to see how big a bang they can make and how deep a hole in the ground they leave.

Check out the new article posted today at www.GlobalResearch.ca Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran

Here's a brief snip:

Plans for a conventional and ‘tactical’ nuclear attack on Iran

On August 1, 2005 Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA agent and associate of Vincent Cannistraro (the former head of the CIA’s counter-intelligence operations and former intelligence director at the National Security Council), published an article entitled “Deep Background” in The American Conservative. The first section of this article carried the following headline: “In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.” I quote the first section of Giraldi’s article in its entirety:

“The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”

The implications of this report are breathtaking. First, it indicates on the part of the ruling Cheney faction within the American state a frank in-house acknowledgment that their often-repeated public claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 attacks are the rubbish that informed people have long known them to be.

At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system. (Though the implicit acknowledgment is shocking, the fact itself should come as no surprise, since recent research has shown that the Bush administration was deeply implicated not merely in permitting the attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen, but in actually organizing them: see Chossudovsky 2002: 51-63, 144-56; Chossudovsky 2005: 51-62, 135-46, 237-61; Griffin 2004: 127-46, 169-201; Griffin 2005: 115-35, 277-91; Marrs 134-37; and Ruppert 309-436.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936

And if anyone still thinks they would hesitate a millisecond to stage a false flag 911 type attack to get the sheep in the mood for another war, just read up on Operation Gladio and how false flag/black op terror attacks were used in Italy to discredit the left and scare the population into looking to government for protection from the terrorists.

Sword Play: Attacking Civilians to Justify "Greater Security"
by Chris Floyd

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.

Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger." Naturally, these peace-throttling "special operations must remain strictly secret," the document warns.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html

[yurbud]

25. great post on GLADIO

[JohnyCanuck]

28. Interesting that I've never hear a word spoken about Gladio

in the mainstream corporate media.

[yurbud]

30. if you asked, they'd say it hasn't been in the news.

but it's a great story for historical interest and interpreting current events too.

[JohnyCanuck]

31. Yup, it shows there's historical precedence for Western Intelligence

agencies supporting MIHOP/false flag terror attacks in order to turn the average Joe and Jane citizens against whatever group or movement carries the official blame for the attack. Naturally enough, it also makes the population more worried about the dangers from the terrorists than about their loss of the freedoms the government requires them to give up in the name of fighting the dastardly terrorists.

[yurbud]

32. we should put together a master list of false flags in research

especially those that got coverage in the mainstream press like Gladio, Northwoods, Lavon Affair, and any others you can think of.

[necso]

26. My guess is that

unless some deal is made between Iran and Russia (et al -- secretly or otherwise; we need four years minimum), then some sort of military action by the US (alone?) is likely.

Of course, it'll prove to be a disaster -- but it may also be the neocons' "best" strategy for protecting their majorities this fall. (Imagine confronting seated Dems with some "force-authorization" bill after heightened media fear-fanning and war-drum-beating -- and the hyped-up "failure" of "diplomacy" (which the administration hasn't really tried, and never really will). And don't forget all those "allies" of ours that are "helping out" too.)

And, of course, power, wealth, and other things of dominating utility, are all that the neocons really care about.

Inevitable ruin? They'll just hide the truth -- or blame it on someone else -- or "will" it away with those tremendous "new man" mental powers that they claim to possess -- or embark on some new madness.