The Straits are very narrow and the Iranians have had anti-ship missile batteries there for a long time.

Still, it wouldn't be much of a fight.

Well, one way to keep Iran from doing this Vice-Admiral is not to bomb them in the first place.

Bunch of squids... LOL! There sitting ducks and they don't wanna even admit it...

I hope these optimistic assessments didn't come from the same guys that gave us the optimistic assessments on Iraq.

Just a little sceptical right now. Maybe we could use a little self-doubt this time around.

Bunch of squids... LOL! There sitting ducks and they don't wanna even admit it...

It's true. But if only one of those ducks die by the hand of a Persian, Iran will become a parking lot. And they know it.

It's true. But if only one of those ducks die by the hand of a Persian, Iran will become a parking lot. And they know it.

You seem so sure. Is your finger on the button?

It's true. But if only one of those ducks die by the hand of a Persian, Iran will become a parking lot. And they know it.

You seem so sure. Is your finger on the button?
KG

That is a no brainer sure thing, regardless of who is POTUS.

You seem so sure. Is your finger on the button?

I'm positive. Sinking a Navy ship is an act of war. As Zap said -- no matter who is president.

Self doubt?

What are you talking about?

This is America, where we...

Go with our gut and...

Shoot from the hip.

Leave doubt to the Thomases.

"You seem so sure. Is your finger on the button?

I'm positive. Sinking a Navy ship is an act of war. As Zap said -- no matter who is president."

Oh, at that time we'd already BE at war, Goatman, seeing that Iran would only do this if they were attacked first by Israel or us. You see, bombing another foreign country is an act of war and an act of aggression. In this scenario, the US, beign the aggressor, would be wise to take their casualties like men without resorting to killing millions of civilians not even involved. If not, well, we're fucked. Know that. You see, people in this country fail to understand that fundamentally we can be destroyed without being obliterated, and no nuclear arsenal can protect against it.

So, you might say you're positive, but that word is so overused nowadays, isn't it?

If Iranians were to be nuts enough to attack American Naval ships, then they would be nuts enough to unleash an atomic weapon if they ever develop them.

Iran won't have to shut down the Gulf. If they are attacked, the markets are going to shut down. Especially ours.

The Israelis are not the kind to bluff. They've been making too much noise to back out now.
I raise the possibility of an attack from even odds to most likely.

Iran would only do this [block the straits of Hormuz] if they were attacked first by Israel or us.

This isn't true. In 1979 I was in the Persian Gulf with Desron 21 when the Iranians blocked the straits and held three ships at bay. We were dispatched with two other warships. Travel time there was about 4 hours. About an hour before we got there they released the ships.

We were not at war then, nor had we attacked them. The Iranians need no reason to block the straits of hormuz.

Besides, if we were, as you say, already at war because of American aggeression, then of course it would happen!

If Iranians were to be nuts enough to attack American Naval ships, then they would be nuts enough to unleash an atomic weapon if they ever develop them.

I wish I could say that for the Israelis. They would be fanatical enough to nuke Iran.

Goatman, I would not consider your example of "blocking the strait" the same thing as what would be attempted. Also the Khomenei days are gone.

That being said I don't believe the Iranians would block the strait. I would consider that a diversionary tactic and quite a clever one to be honest. But I do not doubt the Iranians would respond to any aggression in a unconventional and unique way.

BTW, don't take "Squid" the wrong way...

...squid.

If Israel attacks Iran (act of war), they can not do it without the permission of the US. So they will raise hell in the region. All they have to do is set a couple oil tankers on fire and the price of oil will hit the stratosphere. Not to mention that Iraq is heavily shiite and they will be sympathetic to Iran. Iran has 5 times the population of Iraq and if they start to fight the US where will we get the troops to fight them? Not to mention they could make our lives in Afghanistan hell too.

What will we gain by all of this? Delaying their research a couple years? The destruction of our economy with high energy prices, treasure to fight another war, more casualties and a whole generation of enemies.

Sound like a rational approach???

They would be fanatical enough to nuke Iran

I am not a believer in this pre-emptive nuking, even Israel doing it. I don't think it will happen. Call me an old fashioned believer in reactive conventional war.

"Sound like a rational approach???"

Too bad Spock ain't POTUS.

BTW, don't take "Squid" the wrong way...

I don't. I wear it as a badge of honor. I'm proud to say that I am an honorably discharged veteran of the US Navy. I do think people who have never served in the armed forces have no right to use that word nor jarhead, ground pounder, and flyboy.

This whole thread would be totally unwarranted if we would all, give up our fossil fuel vehicles, shut down our air conditioners, hot water heaters, central heat or heat pumps, microwaves, electric lights, Ipods, cell phones, stick a cork up our ass ( to cut our carbon fart print ).
Sell them all off and invest in a camel, lice/ flea ridden tent, feed the camel mint and hook some duct work up to it's ass for air conditioning, burn it's shit for heating and sending smoke signals to your loved ones and friends. This is osama obamas vision of America, he won't be able to do anything about the price of fuel or food, because he is not a leader, he is totally incompetent, and has sold the lie, so he has to convince us that we will be better off without the comforts we have worked for.

Sounds like pure communism to me.He has to be a worthless fucking marxist. He is a black jimmy the peanut boy carter, incompetent, impotent, definitely not patriotic, if anything, antiAmerican, selling more of the same carter/clinton bullshit or maybe it is camel shit.

History has a way of repeating though not exactly. This is just a thought.

It was the Jewish Zealots that lead the rebellion against Rome resulting in the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora.

Could an attack on Iran lead to the destruction of Israel? I don't think the Israelis are prepared for the backlash from the world community they are going to get.

If a US ship sinks there will be hell to pay for Iran. I can not even imagine what will happen but the world economy will be at stake. I pray for the people that will be downwind of the explosions.

We can hope nothing happens. I am. But a lame duck as president might decide to push the big red button!

people who have never served in the armed forces have no right to use that word (Squid) nor...

Bubblehead, Airdale, Gator, Snipe, though Knuckledragger doesn't always refer to Torpedomen. (LOL)

Actually the only way to block the straits would be to sink a string of large vessels across the straits to impede navigation. Depths range from 20-25 fathoms or about 300 feet max. Highly improbable given the number of large vessels required.

Most likely they would attack tankers with cruise missiles while cutting out supply lines in Iraq. The latter would be the greater danger as it would affect our troops. While interrupting our supply of oil would be a hardship we also have the ability to conserve energy in a more aggressive manner than we are engaged in today.

Iraq is heavily shiite and they will be sympathetic to Iran. -- Salmonella

You're forgetting how hard they fought in the 1980 Iran/Iraq War -- Arab v. Persian seemed to trump Shia v. Shia.

If the Iraqi gov't didn't need the U.S., I'd guess they'd unite with Iran against Israel, but as things stand, I wouldn't want to make any predictions beyond "sheer chaos."

What are the odds of Russia and China siding with Iran?

Hasn't Russia recently released a statement concerning an attack on Iran if memory serves correctly?

Who says Iran is the one to blockade the Gulf?

The US is the one to put up the blockade and force the Iranians to negotiate and get rid of their nuke plans...

Just like NK--no shots--no war--but compliance when the populace of Iran make it necessary for the gov't of Iran to comply.

KGB -- Iran v. USN would be tougher for each side than they think. But it wouldn't be a ground war if they came to blows over Hormuz, and that says a lot. Plus, there are a lot more moderates in Iran who don't like A'Jad. There is some pressure for A'jad to sit down and keep quiet.

I like tough talk from our military. If they try to close the Gulf there will be thousands of dead Persians. Finally we'll get revenge for Thermopole.

I thought it was the Sixth Fleet with the responsibility for the Persian Gulf. It never made sense to me, as to why the fleet on the Med would have coverage of the PG.

Could me my mistake, though. Anyone else know whether or not this is a change?

It was the Fifth fleet of the US Navy that was in charge of the Oil deals during the sanctioning period of Iraq. Is THAT what you meant RIR??

Larry Mohr

unless we hit the.

unless we hit the.

The liberals are sitting back, PRAYING to their God (obama) that Iran would do something so more Americans can die, and oil prices go up more, and the economy tanks some more, so they can use it for their political advantage.

Its come to that, thats all the democrats are. They only speak about doom, gloom and misery. Thats their only fucking platform.

Its fucking pathetic.

Kuma

The liberals are sitting back, PRAYING to their God (obama) that Iran would do something so more Americans can die, and oil prices go up more, and the economy tanks some more, so they can use it for their political advantage.

Its come to that, thats all the democrats are. They only speak about doom, gloom and misery. Thats their only fucking platform.

Its fucking pathetic.

Kuma

Posted by Kuma

TADOWE got himself cloned, or this is him under another name. Only thing missing is "LEFTIST/DEMOCRATIC"

Oh, at that time we'd already BE at war

By any definition -- and certainly according to rules WE would apply to others -- we're already at war with Iran. It's no secret we have special ops folks on Iranian soil already.

RiR,

Is mostly correct like mostly pregnant?? Just curious

Larry

You don't even have to sink a ship.

Presdient Johnson proved that in the Tonkin gulf.

I'm sure Bush will be able to expand his quagmire before the end of his term.

Forget your history, and your doomed to repeat it.

I like your posts Kuma, you add a refreshing new perspective to the drudge!

As for the headline...I'm not so sure. Iran could severely curtail Hormuz traffic, if not effectively cut it off, like back in the 80's, using rockets, speedboats, and mines. It could be a very dangerous place for oil tankers!

"They only speak about doom, gloom and misery."

hahahah

dude do you really close your ears when republicans speak and only see the flag behind them

get a clue

mccain did a speech about foreign policy and used the word nuke like 30 times

ok dude we get it nuke=bad

talk about doom, gloom and misery

wait isn't obama's platform, hope
and mccains, we're at war

seriusly kuma, think before you talk

your all emotion and no substance

"their God (obama)"

The string continues, unbroken: all deification language about Obama originates with righties.

string continues, unbroken: all deification language about Obama originates with righties.

The left should be complimented. They 'know' that the righties see no higher power than god. So to infer deification is the ultimate compliment, right?

BTW, ever notice how close the word 'deification' is to 'defecation'? Would the left rather Obama be compared to god or shit?

"Would the left rather Obama be compared to god or shit?"

Well, of course there's always that seldom used 3rd option of just discussing the pros and cons of his policies and positions.

Well, of course there's always that seldom used 3rd option of just discussing the pros and cons of his policies and positions.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-07-03 08:01 AM | Reply

That's too hard for a trool to do Rio

Larry

"So to infer deification is the ultimate compliment, right?"

Somehow, that's not how it's coming across....

"The string continues, unbroken: all deification language about Obama originates with righties."

Well, figure it out, Danny. Just look at his campaign rallies. people fainting, swooning, jumping up and down, waving their arms, speaking in tongues, etc...they look like Holy Roller services to me. C'mon now, you and your little friends' adoration of the Obamessiah is more than just a "preference" for him in the presidential race. None of you will speak ANY ill of him and will defend his EVERY action and word. You attack any article, person or media which says ANYTHING even slightly negative about him. It's kind of like the Muslims do about Mohammed...no? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...it's deification!

"Just look at his campaign rallies. people fainting, swooning, jumping up and down, waving their arms, speaking in tongues, etc"

BFD. You still don't see the lefties referring to Obama in deistic terms. Only the righties do that, and more & more as they get increasingly desperate.

"adoration of the Obamessiah"

Thanks for proving my point. The string continues, unbroken.

Ah. I left Germany in 1994 and was part of USAREUR at the time, and couldn't remember that the Fifth Fleet even existed. That helps, though. Appreciate it much.

Now the question is, why have a Sixth Fleet? With all the trouble spots in the Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan, Bali, Somalia--seems like the Fifth is the hottest area.

"BFD. You still don't see the lefties referring to Obama in deistic terms."

Of course not...it's their ACTIONs which indicate worship. We righties see your ACTIONS and it looks like a good ol' down-home worship service. Compare one of his rallies with the videos of Wright's congregation and then tell me that our little friends aren't WORSHIPPING the Obamessiah.

Incidently, you didn't say anything about my statement that you defend him mightily in EVERYTHING, kinda like the Muslims and Mohammed.

"Now the question is, why have a Sixth Fleet?"

Do Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, North Africa strike a chord?

"it's their ACTIONs which indicate worship. "

Ha! No one on the left has claimed all problems would be solved, or peace would break out, or gumdrops would fall from the sky. The Republicans aren't happy with their choice, the Dems are, and to the right, that looks like worship.

"WORSHIPPING the Obamessiah"

Unbroken.

"Incidently, you didn't say anything about my statement that you defend him mightily in EVERYTHING,"

Why should I? You're not describing me. I certainly hold no illusions: Obama is a politician.

**** Could an attack on Iran lead to the destruction of Israel? I don't think the Israelis are prepared for the backlash from the world community they are going to get.
Posted by Ray *****

.......it didn't stop them from bombing Iraq's nuclear program and Syria's nuclear program.......

......and what was the Muslim world reaction after those attacks ??......nothing.......

......because the Muslim sects and nationalities hate each other more than they hate the Israelis or the West.......

......if Israel bombs Iran...the Saudis will be dancing in the streets.....

Well, of course there's always that seldom used 3rd option of just discussing the pros and cons of his policies and positions.

Let's do an easy one. In the debate he was asked about sanctuary cities, the current immigration laws and drivers licenses for illegal aliens. He seemed to be for the licenses, would not enforce the immigration law passed in 1996 and had no problem with sanctuary cities. Should be easy to defend these policies.

"If Israel attacks Iran (act of war), they can not do it without the permission of the US."

Posted by SALMONELLA

I wonder if you have perhaps erred as to who is the puppet and who is the puppeteer.

"I pray for the people that will be downwind of the explosions."

Posted by Unclesam

Then pray for us all. Everybody on the planet is eventually "downwind."

"Everybody on the planet is eventually "downwind." "

Posted by ZOT

That's what Sakharov figured out; Why he became a "refusenick."

"Actually the only way to block the straits would be to sink a string of large vessels across the straits to impede navigation. Depths range from 20-25 fathoms or about 300 feet max. Highly improbable given the number of large vessels required.

Most likely they would attack tankers with cruise missiles while cutting out supply lines in Iraq. The latter would be the greater danger as it would affect our troops. While interrupting our supply of oil would be a hardship we also have the ability to conserve energy in a more aggressive manner than we are engaged in today."

Posted by OzarkAggie

From Wired and also via the New Scientist:

- The Strait of Hormuz and The Strait of Malacca: Almost 20 percent of total daily oil production, 16 million barrels, goes through the Straight of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, near Dubai, it's only about 20 miles wide. The Straight of Malacca, between Sumatra and Singapore, is even narrower at less than two miles, yet 15 million barrels of oil (18 percent of global oil) pass through it.

The New Scientist describes a chilling scenario to jam these key points in the global infrastructure. "One scenario being suggested is that hijackers might commandeer a liquid natural gas tanker plying one of the shipping routes, load it with explosives and use it to ram an oil tanker. If this floating bomb produced a burning oil slick, it could render the passage impassable for months, tipping the global economy into crisis as alternative routes would fail to make up the lost supplies."

Source:

If a US ship sinks there will be hell to pay for Iran
If Isreal does it, not so much.

If Iran sank an oil tanker in the Straits, which oil companies would be willing to risk another one? Russia is shipping Iran AA missiles and China needs ME oil. Iraq would line up solidly with Iran, as it did with hezbollah. First bomb of any sort dropped on Iran ensures the mad ayatollahs another decade or two of opposition free leadership.

We'd probably see a China/Russia brokered peace deal with Bush left on the sidelines.

"While interrupting our supply of oil would be a hardship we also have the ability to conserve energy in a more aggressive manner than we are engaged in today."

Posted by OzarkAggie

My thought on this: be prepared to sleep in your car, armed, to guard what fuel may be left in your tank. I greatly fear what will happen in the US when the flow of import crude is greatly curtailed or shut off completely. The veneer of civilization is paper thin and even relatively minor incidents (for example, localized blackouts, civil unrest) are enough to dissolve this veneer and cause instant chaos and anarchy.

I for one have always believed that the system is far more fragile than it appears, and am in continual amazement that the system works as well as it does. But we have yet to be truly tested in the US. On our soil, Americans have been put to the heat perhaps twice: The War Between the States and The Great Depression. Even these two major events, both created by men incidentally, did not bring the entire nation to its knees. 911, a handful of buildings destroyed, four aircraft crashed, and 3000+ people dead, for all the moaning and wailing and crying that took place, hardly compare with a single battle fought during WWII, let alone the destruction of entire cities and the deaths of 10s of millions. If that relatively minor event was enough to bring the US down, imagine long-term energy starvation and what that will bring.

"I greatly fear what will happen in the US when the flow of import crude is greatly curtailed or shut off completely."

That won't happen until it runs out. That's what this whole statement to Iran is about: We will not allow you to cut off our supply of oil. And if they won't sell it to us, we'd take it.

Just because it was stupid to get into a situation where we have to rely on these people in the first place doesn't mean we would sit back and let everything turn to crap shoud they decide to cut us off. We wouldn't be the first addict to shoot the dealer and take his stash.

"And if they won't sell it to us, we'd take it."

Just like Iraq? So that's why the price of oil is so low, we are there and have taken their oil...gotcha.
If anything even remotely like this sorta thing happens, gas will be at $10/gallon in no time.

Lets see BushCo has made a fucking mess of everything: (2) failed wars, dollar and economy in the tank; health care costs continuing to spin out of control with insurance companies quadrupling rates and inventing more and more coverage exceptions while health costs double; national debt and unemployement soaring. If we used the same standards for calculating those numbers as were applied in the fifties inflation and unemployemnt would be at 12%.

Unwilling to admit was a stupid fucking moron he is and being more concerned about the next election than the health of this nation, Shrub wants to start another fucking war. It rallies the populace and distracts their attention, however briefly, from the price of oil. Unfortunately the immediate consequence is $10/gallon gasoline. Big Oil couldn't be happier and Bush leaves us with his famous smirk. Someone else can clean up the mess he made, and more importantly, be blamed for it while they ty.

And yet the righties defend this turd to the very end...pathetic.

Just because it was stupid to get into a situation where we have to rely on these people in the first place doesn't mean we would sit back and let everything turn to crap shoud they decide to cut us off. We wouldn't be the first addict to shoot the dealer and take his stash.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-03 10:31 AM

There was a time when that was a given. Today it is not as clear. With Bush and Company in charge the world would lose and the US would still be control. With Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge the world would also lose but I am not so sure we would still be in control. Nothing has shown me they have what it takes to stomach any show of extreme measures or use of overwhelming forces. Which may be needed in the long run.

"Nothing has shown me they have what it takes to stomach any show of extreme measures or use of overwhelming forces."

Same can be said about the Bushies. Everything is this touchy-feely spreading Demcoracy and freedom bullshit. That is not how or why you fight wars. It all stems from this naive theory that "if you show the Middle East the merits of Democracy, they will change....". It is just a new version of the old liberal "if you just explain to the bad people why what they are doing is wrong, they'll change..." way of thinking. Bush isn't tough on our enemies. He's half queer for them.

Bush isn't tough on our enemies. He's half queer for them.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-03 10:55 AM

Just can't figure out why. He makes every negative political decision regardless of the fallout to the party. Ends up losing support on all sides and brushes it off as making tough choices. Then when he has a chance to gain favor (at least from his own party) he does nothing. Ignorance? Arrogance? I would hate to think I have been on the other side of the eight ball and end up having most of the accusations from the left proven accurate.

Crispee - But I do think that anyone in of the presidency would realize the loss of life that would take place in the US should we be suddenly cut off from fuel and would take drastic steps to prevent it.

"Then when he has a chance to gain favor (at least from his own party) he does nothing. Ignorance? Arrogance? I would hate to think I have been on the other side of the eight ball and end up having most of the accusations from the left proven accurate."

I don't identify with the left or the right but I do tend to accuse Bush of alot things myself - although not necessarily the same stuff others worry about.

Crispee - But I do think that anyone in of the presidency would realize the loss of life that would take place in the US should we be suddenly cut off from fuel and would take drastic steps to prevent it.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-03 11:07 AM

But would they be willing to cut off or limit the supplies we send to the rest of the world. Knowing the loss of life would catastophic?

"That won't happen until it runs out. That's what this whole statement to Iran is about: We will not allow you to cut off our supply of oil. And if they won't sell it to us, we'd take it."

Posted by Sully

The US does not purchase (overtly) crude from Iran.

But you should know that any implied or even fantasized disruption in the oil supply chain, let alone a real event, causes the price to spike up and stocks to be at risk. If the US loses access to the Saudi oil fields (which supply more or less 25% or of our import crude), even for a brief period, expect massive aggression at your local gas stations to follow. Continue that line down the food supply chain.

There is little to no slack in the supply chain.

Just mere rumors of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuke facilities is enough to kick up the price by 5%.

The US does not have the capacity or the resources to do it alone.

"Nothing has shown me they have what it takes to stomach any show of extreme measures or use of overwhelming forces. Which may be needed in the long run."

Posted by crispee_oc

What does the mean? The world ultimately under the titanium boot of the United States? PNAC, Baby!

Seems another nation tried that last century. Twice in fact. The Krauts are still dealing with the consequences of those failures.

What does the mean? The world ultimately under the titanium boot of the United States? PNAC, Baby!

Seems to me distruption in corn production is already having an effect on the world food supplies. Maybe we should start raising the price on other grains we export. Let's raise it percentage wise to the price oil has risen.

There are a couple of articles on antiwar.com (purposely not posting link) right now that speak of financial, as well as policy issues.

For those interested one is "Congress's Virtual Iran War Resolution"

and the other "The Necessary War?" both which provide some points to ponder.

The intention is not to pull posters from the DR, but possibly provide reading material for those on the DR who respect the fact that there are two sides to a coin, and like to read different points of view.

So let me understand....we shouldn't attack Iran...which has sworn to take out Israel if it gets a nuke(virtually only democracy in the middle east - until the establishment of Iraq and Afghanistan and US (the great satan) )

As Iran is directly tied to Hamas and other groups - so there is no doubt that it has the ability to move the nukes to be used by the terriorsts.

So...according to this group, we should sit back until they attack and kill millions - then blame the CIA or the US Military that they did not take action....or come up with some convoluted theory of how the attack was known by George Bush and he did not do anything about it.

Obama will talk them out of the nuke with his overly charasmatic skills....

And you call us crazy.

"Israel ... virtually only democracy in the middle east"

Israel is no more a democracy than the US is and has in fact more overtones of a theocracy because of the de facto state religion and the near total exclusion of membership of those who do not practice the state religion.

Obama will withdraw all troops from the Middle East, call the 5th and 6th Fleets home and start negotiations with Khameini and Ahmadinejad. As soon as he instills Sharia law in the U.S. there will be world peace. At that time we will FINALLY be able to force Danni into a burqa and beat her ass if she opens her mouth. It's all good, so vote Obama!

jest

vow

that was quite a stretch
and you know it

haha

thats like saying
mccain will sell all american jobs to canada, mexico, and china.

take out the stars in the american flag and replace them with a hammer and sickle

end health benefits for all

and finally institute a full on crusade against the muslim barbarians

Well, there ya' go Klifferd. Them's yer two choices. Choose well. ( I'd REALLY like to see danni in that Burqa)

fosha

"which has sworn to take out Israel if it gets a nuke"

show me the quote

this has never been said

in fact iran has made a fatwa that the use of of a nuclear weapon is a sin against islam and thus not allowed to be created.

what iran has stated is
if israel attacks iran, than iran will devestate israel

similar to what any american politician says for the vice versa.

thus if everything stays status quo
the two (israel and iran) should never go to war.
ie, both state they won't be the aggressor

second
ahmedinijad does not control the military
and has no power to launch weapons at israel
no matter how much he spits fire
he has not the power

the power remains with the clerics, who have repeatedly stated that nukes are unislamic

"Well, there ya' go Klifferd. Them's yer two choices. Choose well. ( I'd REALLY like to see danni in that Burqa)"

haha sharia or communism?

not interested in either haha

shit i'm moving to new zealand
they have a law against fat people too !
haha

Fosh,
Just so I understand:

"So...according to this group, we should sit back until they attack and kill millions - then blame the CIA or the US Military that they did not take action....or come up with some convoluted theory of how the attack was known by George Bush and he did not do anything about it."

We should commit our troops and resources, and cause a horrendous economic issue, the price of oil, to spiral out of control...just to defend another country...Israel...a country which already has enuff weaponry and skills to make a parking lot out of virtually every Muslim country as it is? You actually advocate we open another front to do battle on? To defend someone else who isn't even being attacked now? Are you drunk?

"nukes are unislamic"

I'm sure everything requiring quantum mechanics to understand is unislamic.

Here's a lecture on nukes.

Warning: It's from Berkeley.

"virtually every Muslim country "

except pakistan :)

"I'm sure everything requiring quantum mechanics to understand is unislamic."

lol nice
but the opposite is true

but its unislamic because killing woman, children, and elderly are strictly forbidden by sharia rules of war.

thus since nukes kill everyone
they are unislamic

"the power remains with the clerics, who have repeatedly stated that nukes are unislamic"

So was suicide bombers...supposedly. Khomeini changed all that, right? Ya' gotta love thos imams.

"Khomeini's policy did not only represent a rupture with the traditions of Islam, it was also at odds with the Quran. Thus Sura 2, verse 195 reads: "Cast not yourselves to destruction with your own hands." Sura 4, verses 29-30 are still more explicit: "And do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is Most Merciful to you. And whosoever does so in enmity and wrong, verily, We shall let him burn in Fire."

people fainting, swooning, jumping up and down, waving their arms, speaking in tongues, etc...they look like Holy Roller services to me.

You must mean the Bush "townhall" events where people thanked God for selecting him as President? Or the military events where General Halfass told the troops they were on a mission from God?

"thus since nukes kill everyone
they are unislamic"

Posted by klifferd

Everyone's dead.
It's irrelevant.

It's not too late to move to the South Island.

we shouldn't attack Iran...which has sworn to take out Israel if it gets a nuke(virtually only democracy in the middle east

Foshaffer-you have a link to this threat? A direct quote, please.

jest

i agree that the suicide bombers go against the very grain of the koran

all i'm saying is iran has not stated that they will use a nuke on israel

they have stated the opposite

but a gentlemans bet

israel or the usa will strike first.
not iran.

A'jihad saying Israel should be wiped off the map is not considered a threat?

And how would they do it? With the army or a nuke?

Their hatred has no bounds for Israel.

Again...this is the US...the other guy is Israel. As much as you might want to conflate the two, they are two different countries. Not to mention Israel can defend themselves better than any country on the planet except us.

"israel or the usa will strike first.
not iran."

I sure as hell hope so!

"Israel can defend themselves better than any country on the planet except us."

'Ceptin' if mirv shows up wit' his buds and crashes the party. And there be the rub, ay!

All you people who are so worried about Israel's national defense need to hop on a plane and go join the IDF. Because it isn't the job of the US government to defend Israel.

We are fighting a war in their backyard and they've done shit to help us, BTW. (I know, I know, we "can't" use them. I'm sure they have spent many days and nights trying to figure out how to help but they just "can't".) Israel has actually attacked US forces one my time than it has aided them in combat.

You're assuming Iran has mirv's...

"You're assuming Iran has mirv's..."

Posted by evilpolock

Aren't Israel and the US all in a lather that Iran will soon have mirv and company waiting to bust lose with the blue light special?

....Israel has over 150 thermonuclear weapons.....

......how many are aimed at Iran ??........I don't know.....but it's a safe bet that there are enough to annihilate Iran......the Iranians are aware of this......and will never attack Israel despite their bluster.......

......we must stop the insane sabre-rattling.......

......we did the same thing with Iraq and what did that gain us.??.......

"150 thermonuclear weapons"

150 nuclear weapons

There, fixed.

See the Berkeley lecture.

.......thanks Zat.......

WASHINGTON - Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago and there is no evidence it has enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb, according to declassified portions of a secret US intelligence assessment released yesterday - directly contradicting the Bush administration's portrayal of Iran as a terrorist state bent on developing an atomic arsenal.

more stories like thisThe much-anticipated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, ordered by Congress in 2006, concludes that Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program "suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." The Iranian government's decisions, according to the report, "are guided by a cost-benefit approach" rather than a rush to obtain a nuclear weapon "irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."

The report - considered the collective judgment of the nation's 16 spy agencies - estimated the earliest Iran could produce a bomb is 2010 if it resumed its weapons program, but it is more likely that the ability to make a nuclear weapon "may not be attained until after 2015."

The conclusions contrasted sharply with recent statements of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many of the top Republican presidential candidates. Most seem to regard Iran as a nation that wants a nuclear arsenal despite the cost - including a potential military confrontation with the United States.

........so why are some people so hot for war ??...

"Aren't Israel and the US all in a lather that Iran will soon have mirv and company waiting to bust lose with the blue light special?"

I'm no nuclear missile expert but don't ya need a functioning nuclear missile before you can develop a mirv?

***** I'm no nuclear missile expert but don't ya need a functioning nuclear missile before you can develop a mirv?

Posted by evilpolock ******

......they plan on filling them with a lethal mixture of falafal and camel dung.......

All you people who are so worried about Israel's national defense need to hop on a plane and go join the IDF. Because it isn't the job of the US government to defend Israel.
We are fighting a war in their backyard and they've done shit to help us, BTW.
POSTED BY SULLY

Well stated Sully.

"I'm no nuclear missile expert but don't ya need a functioning nuclear missile before you can develop a mirv?"

Posted by evilpolock

You're right. You're not. Ain't no such animal as a nuclear missile.

What the Iranis have is the Shahab-3B medium-range ballistic missile system, estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, which can be tipped with variety of conventional warheads, and can be tipped with nuclear mirv, if and when the Iranis either develop their own or make a nuclear mirv purchase.

All you people who are so worried about Israel's national defense need to hop on a plane and go join the IDF. Because it isn't the job of the US government to defend Israel.
We are fighting a war in their backyard and they've done shit to help us, BTW.
POSTED BY SULLY

Well stated Sully.

Posted by BobOtto at 2008-07-03 02:38 PM |

You forget the hundreds of thousands of americans living in and around Israel. Does the US government owe them anything?

Just Getting:

Iran never threatened Israel? Here is from 2007 Spiegal ( Reuters...not exactly a conservative site.

REUTERS
Only you can prevent regional conflict.
It's hardly surprising any more when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel with destruction. It wasn't so long ago that he suggested the country be moved to Alaska. Or just wiped off the map.

But in a Thursday speech at Isfahan broadcast on state television, he issued a threat more direct than any that had come before. If Israel, he said, were to go to war against Lebanon again this summer, it would be destroyed.

www.spiegel.de/international/
world/0,1518,484958,00.html

or from 2006

www.themiddleeastnow.com/news/
iranthreat.html

Evil - Not drunk - living in todays reality. We used to be able to sit back and the let the nuts in the middle east kill each other over worthless land or who looked at whos daughter. But not anymore - not since 9/11 ...it showed us that if we let things fester eventually all the retoric results in action. For years Americans were killed by these nuts...but it was always "over there" Clinton, Carter turned a blind eye - embraced Arafat - all the while he was taking our aid feathering his own bed, and buying weapons with it.

Now we know that if we do not do something up front we will have to pay for it in the end. Clinton gave Korean a Nuclear power plant..they made weapons - and now we are paying green mail to get them to give the weapons up.

Iran does not have the problems of Korea - nor a large country like China on its boarder telling it what to do. Once they get them..they will use them to show everyone that they are the new power in the Middle east....I rather kill a few now than watch millions die...and then STILL have to kill them later.

"Once they get them..they will use them to show everyone that they are the new power in the Middle east" - Foshaffer

Ah, no, using them is having a war. Showing people you have power is like the Russians did with their May Day parades, by displaying all their weapons in a parade.

"Once they get them..they will use them to show everyone that they are the new power in the Middle east"

yea

seriously
whats the motive for them to go to war with the whole world?

if iran used a nuke
every other nuke power would all of a sudden be their enemy

they want to be a bigger power player, so how does actually using a nuclear weapon accomplish this.

the dude ahmadinejad is a phd in civil engineering.

he's not a dumbass

he knows what he is saying and why

and if you can't see past the propaganda
and just want to bomb all the people that talk smack

then lets declare war on half the world.

putin talks a lot of smack
lets bomb russia

"Does the US government owe them anything?"

Did we send them there? If so yes, if not no.

I just have to ask this question, why in the hell would Iran want to block the Straights of Hormuz and thereby prevent themselves from being able to export oil which is their primary source of income??

"Once they get them..they will use them to show everyone that they are the new power in the Middle east"

The United States has more Navy ships than all the worlds nations have combined...

We're scared..

Officially Iran says it will continue to supply its customers if attacked. That doesn't mean Iran and its customers don't have other options to attack back. The American soft underbelly is financial.

"I just have to ask this question, why in the hell would Iran want to block the Straights of Hormuz and thereby prevent themselves from being able to export oil which is their primary source of income??

Posted by danni at 2008-07-04 09:17 AM"

Danni,

Yours is a valid question. I think what you say is true regarding oil being Iran's primary source of income, but there are other factors to consider:

1. It's not their only source of income.

2. Blocking the Straits of Hormuz would force other nations to become involved, since it would threaten them both politically and economically. This might (or might not) be to Iran's advantage.

3. The Straits are also used by the US to move troops and supplies, thereby becoming a critical strategic target for the safety of US troops in Iraq. A definite diasadvantage for the US.

4. The geography (both in size and proximity) is a definite advantage for Iran as it enables them to leverage their military force.

5. And, of course, in a war one doesn't necessarily conduct themselves rationally. You'll have to determine whose advantage THAT is!

The US currently has the advantage of military/economic power, but it would be foolish (IMHO) to deny that our butt is not exposed in this situation. Given our current "impediments" in the Middle East and the impact that the price of oil is having on our economy (not to mention the developing influence/power of China militarily/economically), I believe the advantages the US now enjoys will decrease.

The US currently has the advantage of military/economic power

And you act like we will lose that advantage. That is the difference between me and you, I have faith in my country.

I have faith in my country.

~Boaz.

That's all well and good Boaz but it aint enuff.

Faith is useful thing to have but it's not a be all and end all.

Like the old saying sez...

If you find yerself in a rowboat that's slowly sinking it's a good idea to pray fer help but don't stop rowing fer shore.

Be Well.

There is a famous saying "Never say never". When it comes to these folks were to put you money is anyones guess. Generally a low probability wack job idea and thats the one.

"The US currently has the advantage of military/economic power

And you act like we will lose that advantage. That is the difference between me and you, I have faith in my country.

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-04 11:19 AM"

Nice. You say that about me without the encumbrances of knowing me, how I act, and/or evidence. Let me clarify it for you: you're completely mistaken about my faith in the US.

Meanwhile, what I DID write: I believe the US's advantages will decrease and I listed several reasons why I believed that to be so. How about addressing what was written, instead of attacking the messenger. It doesn't hurt to be prudent in these situations or do you think otherwise?

You say that about me without the encumbrances of knowing me

But I know what you wrote. Now if you intended the meaning to be otherwise, you should clarify. Every "point" you tried to make was a disparage to the U.S. You seem to think the U.S. has no chance if we were to go to war with Iran. I just know otherwise. I had a few friends like you before the second Iraq war, who though Iraq would hurt the U.S. if we invaded, but I always knew better.

" 'You say that about me without the encumbrances of knowing me'

But I know what you wrote. Now if you intended the meaning to be otherwise, you should clarify."

I did.

"Every "point" you tried to make was a disparage to the U.S."

How so? Actually, MOST of the points have NOTHING to do with the US and mostly have to do with Iran. Those points would still be true if ANYONE (or NO ONE) attacked Iran. As for the ONE point which pertains to the US (our strategic position), it is just an observation. The reality of the situation neither promotes nor disparages the US. It just IS. If you disagree with my assessment, then say so and WHY. Your dismissal of my points seems analogous to dismissing the advice to look both ways before crossing a street because that is "disparaging" to the person crossing the street.

"You seem to think the U.S. has no chance if we were to go to war with Iran. I just know otherwise."

TWO ludicrous assumptions. History teaches us that there is no such thing as "no chance" in a war. By its nature, war is full of surprises. I do believe it would be difficult, likely more difficult than attacking Iraq, and (given our present situation) extremely ill advised. Of course, you "know" otherwise (the second ludicrous assumption)!

"I had a few friends like you before the second Iraq war, who though Iraq would hurt the U.S. if we invaded, but I always knew better.
Posted by boaz at 2008-07-04 12:26 PM"

I'll take your word that you had a few friends like me before the second Iraq war, who though(t) Iraq would hurt the U.S. if we invaded. So, it's 5+ years after "Mission Accomplished", how's that working out for the US? We could debate about how WELL it has worked out, but wouldn't you agree that it didn't turn out the way we "KNEW" it would? Then again, maybe you knew better?

Oh, and before you think/say I'm taking any delight in the current situation, let me say this:
- I am sickened by the way things are in Iraq and Afghanistan (regardless if they are better now than a year ago),
- I am disappointed in the lack of leadership/preparation that (IMHO) directly caused the present situation to happen, and
- I am amazed at the lack of courage to admit/correct/improve the situation instead of what (IMHO) is a continuing effort to gloss things over in order to push the problem onto someone else.