Iran

[zArk]

WW3 -- well some would say that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was the beginnings of WW3, as the US prepare to cement an Empire
WW3 --- some would say that the growing polarisation of the western world indicates a real possibility that WW3 is about to start. Russia is the link pin between the EU, USA and China.
WW3 --- was the cold war (as stated by Thomas Barnett 'The Pentagons New Map', where he lays out the promotion of an American Empire spread throughout 'The Gap'. WW4 is the coming battles and the eventual conflict with China.

I would go with the latter as Thomas Barnet Chief Pentagon Advisor is chummy chummy with Rumsfeld and a serious psychopath. He was part of a think tank to determin the worst case scenario for the US in about 1999 and specifically stated an attack on the US which shuts down wall street for 4 days -- 911. He was finger pointed as 'planning the attack', which he laughs off saying he must be nostradamus but doesnt deny the direct link between him -- war games carried out on 911 morning ---- actual attacks.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

You seem to have forgotten that a large majority of both Britons and Yanks were in favour of the war against Saddam.

Really? Strange my memory is that the majority of the country were opposed and you need a majority (in theory) support to have a proper mandate.

 

[nino_savatte]

Really? Strange my memory is that the majority of the country were opposed and you need a majority (in theory) support to have a proper mandate.

Aye, it would seem our friend is suffering from a form of selective amnesia. Over 80% of Britons were opposed to the war/invasion which pales beside the Spaniards; 98% of whom were against. I'm not sure about the USA.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I remember even up until the eve of the invasion the figures for opposed was something like 56%...but then L+L never lets the truth get in the way of a good dig!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Depends how you read the polls and how they were written, there was a clear majority that favoured invasion if there was a UN mandate, and a sizeable fraction that supported invasion even without one. I did a bit of googling but all i can find is the wikipedia on the topic rather than the polls themselves.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

WW3 -- well some would say that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was the beginnings of WW3, as the US prepare to cement an Empire
WW3 --- some would say that the growing polarisation of the western world indicates a real possibility that WW3 is about to start. Russia is the link pin between the EU, USA and China.
WW3 --- was the cold war (as stated by Thomas Barnett 'The Pentagons New Map', where he lays out the promotion of an American Empire spread throughout 'The Gap'. WW4 is the coming battles and the eventual conflict with China.

<sniped conspiraloon bollocks>.

WWIII implies the same sort of widespread conflict as WWI and II, more people died in vietnam than have in iraq and afganistan put together. Calling it WWIII is nothing but hyperbole, prophecising that a bombing campain in Iran would be equivalent is very tenuous indeed.

 

[cemertyone]

WWIII implies the same sort of widespread conflict as WWI and II, more people died in vietnam than have in iraq and afganistan put together. Calling it WWIII is nothing but hyperbole, prophecising that a bombing campain in Iran would be equivalent is very tenuous indeed.

I agree with what your saying ( to a degree) but then again the machinations and methodology of War per say have changed dramaticaaly over the course of the last 4-5 decades. As a consequence we no longer see the levels of dead soldiers et all that may have occuried in previous conflicts.

 

[zArk]

WWIII implies the same sort of widespread conflict as WWI and II, more people died in vietnam than have in iraq and afganistan put together. Calling it WWIII is nothing but hyperbole, prophecising that a bombing campain in Iran would be equivalent is very tenuous indeed.

War doesnt necessarily have to be physical. The information society has become dominant over the previous dominant, industrial. The cold war was a very real world conflict, which not only impacted upon countries worldwide physically but also impacted upon consciousness and world economics.
The continuing conflict with Iran through discussions, information wars and threats from and against all parties is part of a wider campaign to 'fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'.
Looking at the countries which have been targeted we see 'The Gap' that Barnet isolates is being filled methodically.
Afghanistan -- totally screwed country, a couple of aks-- no really threat
Iraq - 13 years of sanctions and no conflict of any mention when US and UK first entered the country
Syria -- totally screwed country
Iran --- full on military, heavy artilary, airforce, huge army, state of the art missiles, a stable economy and a very stable governmental structure.

Iran is not Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan. The US historically fights and attacks countries that are weak. Iran will not hear the promises of the US like Saddam did in the 1990's, they will retaliate if attacked -- and i would expect the same of the UK or USA.

Sorry dude, the world is split over the 'War on Terror'. China and Russia are not keen on the USA and are politically removed from the EU. Russia is the link pin and an attack on Iran will provoke political polarisation from all areas.
I maintain WW4 (following Barnets explanation) has begun, the waiting game on Iran is due mainly to political conflict between 'The Allies'. If the US, through Bolton in the UN, are given any opportunity they will go for it and then bully the confused nations to get inline.
This is a move for world economic stability -- oil, prevent Iran becoming self- sustainable.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I agree with what your saying ( to a degree) but then again the machinations and methodology of War per say have changed dramaticaaly over the course of the last 4-5 decades. As a consequence we no longer see the levels of dead soldiers et all that may have occuried in previous conflicts.

That's fair, but still the term World War implies slightly greater participation than the coalition of the willing (i'd like to restate just how stupid that term sounds) and the countries they/we are invading at the time.

If it's not the same sort of war then why try to equate them? Sillyness imo.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Iran is not Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan. The US historically fights and attacks countries that are weak. Iran will not hear the promises of the US like Saddam did in the 1990's, they will retaliate if attacked -- and i would expect the same of the UK or USA.

Do you really think they will be able to respond in any offensive manner? Stealthbombers go in and remove defensive systems, cruisemissiles are used to neutralise airfields, conventional aircraft then go in and total anything that in another climate would be painted green.

Iran's options for retaliation are limited to Iraq, flood the country with people armed with light weapons and explosives. It'd make iraq a bloodbath, but there are ways and means to limit even the effects of this.

 

[zArk]

Do you really think they will be able to respond in any offensive manner?

Yes and unfortunately your question raises the issue;

if Irans military isnt for defensive purposes, what good is it having one?

You say 'offensive manner' but lets be clear, you stated that the first strike would be on Iran -- therefore they would be 'defensively' responding.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Depends how you read the polls and how they were written, there was a clear majority that favoured invasion if there was a UN mandate, and a sizeable fraction that supported invasion even without one. I did a bit of googling but all i can find is the wikipedia on the topic rather than the polls themselves.

Of course and that's just the wriggle room L+L needs to get out of his usual stupid comments. I was argueing that on the basis of the invasion as it stood there was clear and majority opposition (it did drop, to around 40-45% I think, once the bombing started due to the effects of "support our boys/troops" propaganda").

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yes and unfortunately your question raises the issue;

if Irans military isnt for defensive purposes, what good is it having one?

You say 'offensive manner' but lets be clear, you stated that the first strike would be on Iran -- therefore they would be 'defensively' responding.

You wot? I'm trying to find a point here and failing.

Iran has no more ability to hurt the US than Iraq did, they cannot project power (or missiles) that far, they have no heavy lift capability or amphibious assets, all they can do is move into iraq and cause trouble there. To do this would be tricky as you'd need to move huge amounts of people requiring impresive C&C (one of the first targets) and vehicles, dropping a couple of tons of concertina wire backed up by tanks on the roads and sending helicopters with shoot on site orders and thermal imagers to cover the rest. Means that iraq could be temporarily isolated from iran. All you'd have to do is wait for their food/water/petrol to run out.

Saying that bombing iran will start WWIII is bullshit, Russia and china may get very annoyed but they aren't going to go to war over it. Think about the first gulf war, neutralise the military and avoid the populance.

 

[zArk]

Iran has no more ability to hurt the US than Iraq did. All you'd have to do is wait for their food/water/petrol to run out.

Saying that bombing iran will start WWIII is bullshit, Russia and china may get very annoyed but they aren't going to go to war over it. Think about the first gulf war, neutralise the military and avoid the populance.

I think you are blinkered in your view of the implications of an attack on Iran. Iran has economic links to China and Russia through military spending, Iran has a major portion of oil supplies and the US will risk complete political isolation.

Yes, the US could squash Iran militarily yet Iran can squash the US economically and politically.

Think about the first gulf war --- well i do and the deaths of over 1 million women and children through Sanctions was not an avoidance of the populance.

The war didnt stop when Bush said, "military operations cease today", if that was true the term 'Cold War' doesnt make sense.

War and World War has moved on from the older days of bang bang, "we own this country". The US cannot do that without showing their hand as Empire Building. The World War that we are in right now, 'The War on Terror', is ongoing and will last generations.

A military strike by the US will result in all out war because Iran has the economic advantage and will impact upon all countries. Politically the US will be destroyed and if they are intent on attacking Iran, they will not be shy in slapping a few other countries.

A devasting strike upon the US was named as Wall Street shut down for 4 days -- Thomas Barnet Chief Pentagon Advisor. Iran can deliver a strike which dwarfs that and one which will impact world wide.

and we must accept the possibility of escalation;

The mini-nukes have been redefined as a defensive weapon, which is "safe for civilians" "because the explosion is underground". The Senate in a December 2003 decision, has authorized their use in conventional war theaters

the US have reclassified the use of nukes and the generals will not consider the implications of using 'safe weapons for civilians'-- they will just use them because they are authorised.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So in other words a bombing campain followed on by the US ambassadors not being invited to the latest parties = WWX (where X is a integer greater than 2).

Sloppy thinking and sloppy use of terminology are your MO.

 

[zArk]

great -- reasoning is lost on bob

 

[Lock&Light]

Of course and that's just the wriggle room L+L needs to get out of his usual stupid comments.

I'm always pleased to see the words 'wiggle room' as they are a clear sign that I was right. It's quite amazing how often these words are used.

 

[phildwyer]

Hi I am kinda new here but, I have spent most of the past six months mouthing of about a war against Iran, never an invasion just a war for a number of reasons. I was giving a tentative date as September or Octorber this year. Most likely a vast number of airstrikes and so on to occupy the headlines with good news in the run up to the mid term elections in the US.

A democratic Senate is a strong likley hood and the founding fathers may have been slave owning neo aristocrats and so on, but they were not without there merits and had men almost precisly like Dubya in mind (for our King George II they had King George III), so they granted the legislative with investigative powers. Keen to return to power a democratic senate would initiate a series of investigations basicaly start digging in a garden where every inch has a body undereath. It would be pay back time with bells on it.

So the current administration needs something to swing its popularity up the stakes in October, a successful air campaign with loads of big bangs and the release that a clean air war would have to distract from the grimey urban horror of Iraq would give el presidente and his honchos the push they need to retain congress. Well that I thought was the thinking.

However it seems that some key republicans disagree. Two men in particular. Chuck Hegel and Richard Luger. Both very senior republican Senators. Now they are not putting the brakes on the neocons out of love of human harmony, its just there is a hell of a lot more to the american economy and political system than the far right of the god squad and big oil.

An attack on Iran would lead to unpredictable and potentialy disasterous retaliations in Iraq, which many of the top brass see and are keen to prevent.
The price of oil would hammer the global economy which is not good for the CEOs of hi tech firms and banks and utilities and ad infinitum.
It would harm massivly the long term interests of the US empire in the Middle East and potentialy destablise the entire region.

So Luger and Hagel have been rounding up support and it seems have strong armed the administration into at least offering talks with Iran.

How much influence this will have is beyond me, but and Id not put it past the neo con loons to manufacture and incident in late july august to create the situation to hit Iran anyway.

But the anti war forces this time round are not just the tie dyed wearing hippies and accademics. Its a core part of the GOP.

A brilliant post, I agree with all you say here. Although I'm not sure that Dubya (which term should be understood as designating a whole ideological clique) will lose any power struggle within the GOP, because of their willingness to use dirty tricks and blackmail to silence their opponents. In fact, if their backs ever get near enough to the wall, we may well find out just how far they are prepared to go--Kitty Kelley's book on the Bushes makes a convincing case that they could give the Mafia classes on ruthlessness. I'd also point out that it is strongly in *Israel's* interests to take out as much of Iran's military capacity as possible, and that this may be their last chance to use the US as a proxy for doing so. So I agree: massive air strikes in the fall, then sit back and hope the Iranians are nice enough not to retaliate.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I'm always pleased to see the words 'wiggle room' as they are a clear sign that I was right. It's quite amazing how often these words are used.

Then you must be never wrong Mr Wriggle!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Attacking Iran will have economic reprecussions.

People died because of sanctions.

Bullshit about cold war and invading iraq, utterly baffling.

Blah blah, war has moved on etc etc.

Attacking iraq will mean all out war, reason left unspecified.

Conspiraloong bollocks.

OMFG!!!1!! Teh US want to use teh b0mb!

Yes indeedy fact fans, the reason encapsulated in this post is lost on me.

 

[zArk]

said my piece post 44.

finished
*********

 

[Lock&Light]

Then you must be never wrong Mr Wriggle!

I am sometimes unsure what time it is.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

said my piece post 44.

finished
*********

You said a lot in post 44, of course what you meant was completely indecipherable, the layout was beyond poor, the quotations inconsistent and what exactly you were trying to say was lost, as such it was more of a rant than a discussion or an attempt to make a point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with what your saying ( to a degree) but then again the machinations and methodology of War per say have changed dramaticaaly over the course of the last 4-5 decades. As a consequence we no longer see the levels of dead soldiers et all that may have occuried in previous conflicts.

It's certainly the case (imho) that civilians are more at risk of directed violence in modern wars than they have been for a couple of centuries. Massacre has become a staple destabilisation device in some instances.

I don't however think you can take the casualties from contained conflicts (Vietnam, Korea and the like) and "policing actions" (the six counties, Malaysia and the like) and extrapolate from them that a multi-sited conflict would have fewer casualties. In all probability if a "world war" came about then cannon fodder would be conscripted and just as many bodies would fertilise the battlefields.

 

[Streathamite]

You seem to have forgotten that a large majority of both Britons and Yanks were in favour of the war against Saddam.

EH??? that is a pretty contentious claim, especially given that it provoked the single largest protest ever seen in an english-speaking nation. on what do you base this assertion please?
because that's not my recollection at all

 

[phildwyer]

EH??? that is a pretty contentious claim, especially given that it provoked the single largest protest ever seen in an english-speaking nation. on what do you base this assertion please?

If it was my assertion, I would base it on the fact that a large majority of Brits and Yanks voted for pro-war parties, and that they both re-elected the party that started the war.

 

[slaar]

Because Iraq is the only event of any interest to British voters?

What dreadful logic.

 

[phildwyer]

Because Iraq is the only event of any interest to British voters?

What dreadful logic.

The fact that the British people do not show proportionate interest in the fact that their government is slaughtering tens of thousands of foriegners testifies all the more strongly to their complicity.

 

[nino_savatte]

If it was my assertion, I would base it on the fact that a large majority of Brits and Yanks voted for pro-war parties, and that they both re-elected the party that started the war.

Get out your broad brush, we're going painting. Absolute nonsense. Who is "they" btw?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Because Iraq is the only event of any interest to British voters?

What dreadful logic.

Awful fails to encompas just how fucking stupid it is.