Iran Digging 320,000 Graves to Bury Dead Enemies

[Tom_Turner]

What makes anyone think NK gave up its Nuclear Weapons program? Because they blew up some old infrastructure that was due to be demolished anyway? Who is doing the verification regarding their program? China?

Will NK be giving up their nukes or material already made?

Better than nothing I suppose...and perhaps all that was possible, but.... hardly a victory... NK wanted their nukes, and they probably have them now. They also want their food shipments etc. and they apparently have that now as well.

Tom

[NYCMedic]

Is a 10 year old running that country? That is really lame.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Li...tml?mea=169811

[coloneltigh]

The recent story in the New Yorker about our intentions has been verfied by many experts as high level military leaks that Bush is planning on attacking Iran before the year end. The one thing this country cannot afford is another war. If this Gov't really thinks America will stand behind an attack on Iran they really are out of their mind.

There's something to be said about the threatening the use of force and its effects on diplomacy's level of efficacy. Also, plans are just plans and there's are likely lots of plans on Pentagon shelves that will never be used.

I also don't think a military confrontation with Iran is all that far fetched. Why? Crude spot prices are above $140/barrel. You can argue the reasons why but that's the price. What's Iran have to do with this? The Strait of Hormuz. 21 miles wide at its narrowest point - estimated 20% of world's oil production goes through there by ship. If Iran says they are going to enforce a naval blockade of the Strait, no telling how much a barrel of crude is going to be $200, $250, $300? And rerouting that production is not as simple as you think because you can't easily move the infrastructure set up to deliver oil by ship - not to mention the ships trapped in the Arabian Gulf.

In that scenario, do you think that Americans would be content to stand idly by? Iran has threatened this action in the past and so it's not so foolish to have contingency plans for military action.

[Tom_Turner]

Of course Iran has indicated it will block The Strait of Hormuz IF they are attacked (by the US or Israel presumably), so that is (one of) *their* contingency plans.

[PhilDernerJr]

If we are already attacking them, and they block the Strait, isn't it obvious that whatever they block it with will be a collection of small pieces of debris within 24 hours?

[moose135]

If we are already attacking them, and they block the Strait, isn't it obvious that whatever they block it with will be a collection of small pieces of debris within 24 hours?

How deep is the water in the shipping lanes? They may not need a traditional "naval blockade" - you sink a couple of tankers in the right spot, and it could have the same effect.

[PhilDernerJr]

With 21 miles wide at its most NARROW point, I'm sure we'd have a plan to even prevent that kind of thing from happening then.

Somewhat off-topic, but the people that cry "no blood for oil" about Iraq are wrong, because we are not taking Iraqi oil, and we've not benefited from the war in terms of oil. Unfortunately, oil IS our bloodline, and if we need to, we NEED TO fight for it. I do think we should fight Iran if they try to prevent us from getting the oil that we need to operate as a nation.

[moose135]

With 21 miles wide at its most NARROW point, I'm sure we'd have a plan to even prevent that kind of thing from happening then.

Yes, but the actual shipping lanes consist of 2 2-mile wide lanes (one inbound, one outbound) with a 2-mile buffer between them. Just because the strait is 21 miles wide doesn't mean it is navigable over that entire width.

I was reading somewhere (can't find the site right now) about a supposed "contingency plan" Iran has that would include aircraft, surface and underwater naval vessels, anti-shipping missiles, mines, coastal artillery, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Back in the mid-80s, during the Iran/Iraq war, the two sides engaged in a "tanker war" where they fired on each others oil tankers, during which foreign-flagged ships were caught in the cross-fire. Shipping dropped 25%, and eventually the US Navy stepped in to protect foreign shipping.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't relish the thought of riding on a large, lumbering boat full of crude oil while someone was shooting at me. :shock:

[T-Bird76]

The American ppl will not support action against Iran and rightly so. Do we really need to under the same President violate our own Founding Father's beliefs of never invading a sovereign nation again? Our Gov't lied to us about Iraq and unless there is a broad Global alliance that is willing to stand side by side not one U.S solider or bomb should fall on Iran.

You know the symbolic crest of this nation is an eagle with an arrow in one claw and an olive branch in the other. In the 1950s the Eagle was changed so that its head was facing the same direction of the olive branch to reflect America's stance towards peace and diplomacy as a solution vs military action...under our current President that doesn't seem to be the case. Its time we sit down face to face with Iran for high level talks to work out a peaceful solution via diplomatic means rather then military. The people of Iran once they start to get a taste of the West will free themselves of their tyrant leaders. Its happened before with nations and it can happen again.

[PhilDernerJr]

1. They didn't LIE. They may have been very wrong and poorly planned the war, but I've never seen proof that they have full prior knowledge that Iraq did not have WMDs, which is what would constitute a lie.

2. If someone (Israel) goes to war with Iran, and they do block oil shipping, we had BETTER attack them. We can't afford to spend $15 a gallon because some loon think he's immune because potheads in Union Square will cry if we attack anyone else.

I don't want war, but this guy doesn't get a free pass if he provokes us.

I wish diplomacy would work, but when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's just not going to happen when you have so many that are brainwashed and scared to even consider anything else.

[nwafan20]

No one wants war, and it's not like Bush woke up one day saying "Well, i'm going to find an excuse to attack Iraq today". All military experts from many nations agreed on intelligence that Iraq had WMD's, Bush is not an evil man, you may not agree with him but he isn't evil.

The problem is how do you negotiate with a man who has stated that he feels that it is his Allah-given gift to wipe Israel and its allies (U.S.) off the map? You can't, the best you are going to do is the failed N.K. policy of Bubba. You can't negotiate with a crazy person, it is impossible.

I'm all for the diplomatic action, but what I am NOT for is giving into the demands of crazy leaders and terrorists like Ahmadinejad. We CAN NOT be lead by fear or utter hatred of war that we refuse to stand up and say enough is enough. Do I want it to happen? No, of course not! But we should not take on a stance of appeasement.

[Tom_Turner]

The US has absolutely no choice but to attack Iran if it blockades the Strait in any way, however, that is apparently exactly what Iran is prepared to do IF they get attacked.

The Mullahs ruling Iran are unfortunately asserting themselves in the Israel issue. Unfortunate because the Persians, (Iranians), do not have strong feelings on Isreal (in comparison to the Arab states at least) and its a hugely populated country that is not necessarily anti-American (or especially so when you consider the CIA helped install the Shah, the Navy shot down a Civil Airliner, etc).

Maybe its best to let Israel handle this alone.... and if the Strait gets blocked by Iran, well, the world knows the US will need to unblock it, and that will not be questioned.

But be prepared. Iran is not Iraq. There will likely be many American casualties in Iraq and possibly the Gulf States, a massive attack on Israel from all sides, terrorist attacks on US Soil, and of course the Strait will be blocked (for a time) and the US economy will be destroyed.

And, how long will the Stait be blocked? A week? A month? Or will sabotage continue for years upon years? And what will happen when Iran sends human waves and hundreds of thousands of rag tag troops behind the Republican Guards? Sadam had to use WMD to stop them. Where is our Million Man Army when they overrun the Iraqi border? Our 3 million man army? Do we have enough bombs to stop them, short of going nuclear?

There are reasons much of the military command and intelligence agencies are against attacking Iran, it is certainly not that they believe Iran is not a threat.

Tom

[T-Bird76]

1. They didn't LIE. They may have been very wrong and poorly planned the war, but I've never seen proof that they have full prior knowledge that Iraq did not have WMDs, which is what would constitute a lie.

2. If someone (Israel) goes to war with Iran, and they do block oil shipping, we had BETTER attack them. We can't afford to spend $15 a gallon because some loon think he's immune because potheads in Union Square will cry if we attack anyone else.

I don't want war, but this guy doesn't get a free pass if he provokes us.

I wish diplomacy would work, but when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's just not going to happen when you have so many that are brainwashed and scared to even consider anything else.

1. Phil....the administration lied or stretched the truth if you will when it came to invading Iraq... Not one report prior to the war said they had WMDs. There was ZERO evidence that Iraq had connections to terror groups. It was all part of Bush's grand plan to spread Democracy through the Mid East.

2. So you think by attacking Iran and clearing the straight for shipping oil prices will come down and not skyrocket? Any action against Iran even with secure shipping lanes will launch oil through the roof which is something we can't afford.

How many other nations around the world are calling for military action against Iran? Do you know? ONLY ISREAL..... Not one other nation wants military action, does that make them weak? Its a dam good thing there were cooler heads back during the cold war in Washington or NONE of us would be here right to even debate about Iran.

Our military is stretched WAY to thin right now to handle another battle front. Who’s to say Iran won’t roll tanks into Iraq opening a front along the boarder? There’s a very good reason high level military officials leaked some of Washington’s plans because they know a confrontation with Iran won’t be the cake walk like we had against the Iraqi army. The situation is vastly different then it was when we invaded Iraq.

In order to make Iran back down we need a strong alliance of nations that number one will work via diplomatic channels to bring a peaceful solution to this situation but also show Iran that the nations of the world will use military force if required. The U.S CANNOT do it alone this time, it’s that simple. We risk economic and social destruction if we do. You can blame the retard sitting in office for that….

In the past we’ve dealt with nations that had extreme leadership and extreme philosophies that many said we could never talk to….i.e. China…Look what Nixon did when he went there! He used diplomacy with the backing of the U.S military to open China to west. Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S or its interests.

[Lezam]

We aren't dealing with normal people over here, this guy is determined to destroy our way of life. He is sitting there high on his pedestal, thinking hes invincible. Why cant we just go in with a couple rouge snipers and kill him?

Here are some quotes from Ahmadinejad I found on the web, I found them interesting:

"Not only the US and Israel, but a hundred others like them cannot attack Iran and they know it themselves," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

"They know the Iranian nation and are aware that they cannot talk to us with the language of force and threats. They must give in to the will of the Iranian nation," he added.

"They are expecting the day will come when our crude oil and gas will be finished. When that happens, they hope to sell these commodities to us at very high prices," the Bernama report quoted him as saying.

[adam613]

But be prepared. Iran is not Iraq. There will likely be many American casualties in Iraq and possibly the Gulf States, a massive attack on Israel from all sides, terrorist attacks on US Soil, and of course the Strait will be blocked (for a time) and the US economy will be destroyed.

And, how long will the Stait be blocked? A week? A month? Or will sabotage continue for years upon years? And what will happen when Iran sends human waves and hundreds of thousands of rag tag troops behind the Republican Guards? Sadam had to use WMD to stop them. Where is our Million Man Army when they overrun the Iraqi border? Our 3 million man army? Do we have enough bombs to stop them, short of going nuclear?

There are reasons much of the military command and intelligence agencies are against attacking Iran, it is certainly not that they believe Iran is not a threat.

My thoughts exactly. The consequences of the use of military force against Iran will be far far worse than even not doing anything at all. We could have won in Iraq, but chose not to. We can't win in Iran, because they don't play by the rules.

Of course, before we invaded Iraq, there were moderate factions making significant headway in Iran. We should have been propping them up, instead of helping Ahmadinejad gain power through our actions in Iraq. Remember, Saddam Hussein's regime was Sunni even though the Shiites are the majority in Iraq. Ahmadinejad is a Shiite. The Sunnis and the Shiites generally hate each other. By overthrowing Saddam, we created an Iran-Iraq alliance. Ahmadinejad knows that, and it gives him every right to talk like he's invincible, because he basically is.

(Am I the only one who opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was bad military policy?)