October Surprise?

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart Thus committed to an open conflict, where does Boy George go from there???

Wayl he'll jes schock'n'awe 'em with a lil ol air campaign, then the Iranians will emerge in the streets waving American flags, then the mullahs will fall, and then Bob's yer uncle.:)

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart . {{Hangs head in dispare}} Dear gawd... IF this is true -- Bush has yet again arrogantly overestimated our military dominance. IF this is true, I predict that Iran will offer their own October surprise, such as sinking a couple of U.S. Navy ships. Thus committed to an open conflict, where does Boy George go from there??? .

Iran is exactly where it wants to be. Bush's fiasco in Iraq has boosted Iranian prestige and power immensely. Attacking US ships would be stupid and counter-productive. It would give Bush his "Gulf of Tonkin". I think if anything does happen it will be the Israelis acting as proxy. Who knows. Perhaps sanity will prevail. Doesn't seem likely but still possible.

A story published yesterday:
Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option

The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY. The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning. "The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting." A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon. Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.

Quote by: Nono Wayl he'll jes schock'n'awe 'em with a lil ol air campaign, then the Iranians will emerge in the streets waving American flags, then the mullahs will fall, and them Bob's yer uncle.:)

That's right. Just like it happened in Iraq. Just one letter diffence, that's all.

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . {{Hangs head in dispare}} Dear gawd... IF this is true -- Bush has yet again arrogantly overestimated our military dominance. IF this is true, I predict that Iran will offer their own October surprise, such as sinking a couple of U.S. Navy ships. Thus committed to an open conflict, where does Boy George go from there??? .

where does Boy George go from there???

Hopefully, before the Senate impeachment hearings.

This may polarize the nation like it has never been polarized before. Perhaps the electorate would see the folly of this and vote the Republican Legislative Rascals out of office and begin Presidential impeachment proceedings while simultaneously starting a total disengagement from the Middle East.

I realize this is best scene scenario, but unfortunately the Democrats don't have the gonads to withdraw completely from the Middle East. They have the emotional courage to seek retribution for King George's folly, but they lack the will to abandon Israel. Bad deal.

Disengaging from Iraq and Afghanistan is like removing only one shoe from the quicksand while sinking in the Middle East quaqmire. Without the total disenegagement from the Middle East, then the US will never be completely free from the sucking sound of that Middle Eastern quicksand.

After all the jacks are in their boxes
And the clowns have all gone to bed
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street
Footsteps dressed in red
And the wind whispers mary
A broom is drearily sweeping
Up the broken pieces of yesterdays life
Somewhere a queen is weeping
Somewhere a king has no wife
And the wind, it cries mary
The traffic lights, they turn, uh, blue tomorrow
And shine their emptiness down on my bed
The tiny island sags down stream
cause the life that lived is,
Is dead
And the wind screams mary
Uh-will the wind ever remember
The names it has blow in the past?
And with this crutch, its old age, and its wisdom
It whispers no, this will be the last
And the wind cries mary

Jimi Hendrix

[Nono]

On across the waters I see weapons barking out the sting of death.
And up in the clouds I can imagine UFOs
Shuffling themselves, and laughing they sayin'
"Those people so uptight, they sure know how to make a mess.
Yes!"

- Jimi Hendrix

[brien]

Quote by: Nono On across the waters I see Weapons barking out the sting of death. And up in the clouds I can imagine UFOs Shuffling themselves, And laughing they sayin' "Those people so uptight, They sure know how to make a mess. Yes!" - Jimi Hendrix

It was a shame to lose him as at such a young age. It is interesting how some of his stuff is still meaningful today, even more so, but is anyone listening? Obviously not the right people.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: RickSp Iran is exactly where it wants to be. Bush's fiasco in Iraq has boosted Iranian prestige and power immensely. Attacking US ships would be stupid and counter-productive.

To the contrary, it would be a smart move. A naval blockade by the U.S. is an act of war, and Iran would have every legal right to resist it. And while the Bush League may be arrogant enough to think they can get away with it, something tells me that Iran has the conventional technology to defeat naval targets. With cruise missiles, for instance.

Then what does the U.S. do? Bring in some carrier groups and long range bombers for a bombing campaign? Again, Iran probably has the ability to shoot down at least some of our planes and possibly even attack carrier groups, even if they do take most of the damage.

So, now where are we... once again a Muslim nation, for no provable reason beyond sticking their tongue out at the U.S., has been viciously attacked, with the inevitable civilian casualties. And, they valiently defended themselves by administering some high profile losses against the vastly superior U.S.; Losses that will play in every U.S. news media to an already war weary U.S. electorate.

And very likely, our airstrikes alone will not defeat Iran. They're much larger than Iraq, much stronger, and likely much more prepared, with lots and lots of clever media showing the world what a brutal, ableit vulnerable, bully the U.S. is -- U.S. minesweepers burning offshore, aircraft wreakage surrounded by grinning Iranian defenders, miserable looking American air crews held captive. Whatever damage they absorb will be worth the global P.R. bonanza... Hezbollah vs. Israel all over again, but on steroids. Iran successfully stands up to the U.S. The entire mideast will rally to them, and any movements among moderate Iranians to get rid of their Islamic leadership with evaporate overnight, rallying patrioticallly to the defense of their nation agaisnt the Great Satan.

So NOW what does the U.S. do? Invade? With what? Our military has already been ground to a blunt edge in Iraq... short of supplies, new equipment and troops.

Nah... the U.S. has only gotten weaker in the last 5 years, while Iran has probably been using their massive oil profits to prepare for just such an opportunity. Now is exactly the time to give the U.S. a bloody nose.


.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart .And very likely, our airstrikes alone will not defeat Iran. They're much larger than Iraq, much stronger, and likely much more prepared, with lots and lots of clever media showing the world what a brutal, ableit vulnerable, bully the U.S. is -- U.S. minesweepers burning offshore, aircraft wreakage surrounded by grinning Iranian defenders, miserable looking American air crews held captive. Whatever damage they absorb will be worth the global P.R. bonanza... Hezbollah vs. Israel all over again, but on steroids. Iran successfully stands up to the U.S. The entire mideast will rally to them, and any movements among moderate Iranians to get rid of their Islamic leadership with evaporate overnight, rallying patrioticallly to the defense of their nation agaisnt the Great Satan. So NOW what does the U.S. do? Invade? With what? Our military has already been ground to a blunt edge in Iraq... short of supplies, new equipment and troops. .

If the US launched air attacks, ground troops would be inevitable. It would require a full scale mobilzation - the Third World War that the neo-cons have been talking about.

What Would War Look Like?

That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long. Zinni, for one, believes an attack on Iran could eventually lead to U.S. troops on the ground. "You've got to be careful with your assumptions," he says. "In Iraq, the assumption was that it would be a liberation, not an occupation. You've got to be prepared for the worst case, and the worst case involving Iran takes you down to boots on the ground."

[xyzer]

Pakistan and North Korea, who actually have nukes, are each greater threats to the United States than Iran yet I do not hear any of the neocons shouting for new and bloody wars with either of these countries. Iran is no threat to the United Ststaes, unless we are stupid enough to start a war. Iraq is a fiasco but compared to attacking Iran would be a cakewalk.

I disagree with this statement! I don't see how those two pose much of a threat to us. North Korea which our hero Clinton allowed to develop the system hasn't produced missiles that can reach much farther than Japan...Pakistan is a friend in spite of the agitations and falsehoods of the media. Iran is at the seat of terrorism and a likely candidate to arm it own and hired terrorists with suitcas bombs. Isn't to blame for much of what goes on Iraq? plus... it sits in close proximaty to Israel which has nukes, and those two are not friendly!

[RickSp]

LOL. You consider two countries that already have nuclear weapons to be a lesser threat than a country which is, according to the CIA, ten years away from having a nuclear weapon? Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, unlike India, Pakistan and North Korea.

So Iran's nukes rank right up there with Saddam's WMD.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: RickSp You consider two countries that already have nuclear weapons to be a lesser threat than a country which is, according to the CIA, ten years away from having a nuclear weapon? Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, unlike India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Even worse, Pakistan has a massive population of radical Muslims very sympathetic to the Taliban cause, and Musharraf's hold on his government is tenuous at best. There have been two assassination attempts against him already. Should his government fall, well..... who gets control of his very real nukes?

Quote by: RickSp If the US launched air attacks, ground troops would be inevitable. It would require a full scale mobilzation - the Third World War that the neo-cons have been talking about.

And you think the U.S. is capable of this by October, or even within a year? Or that the public would support it?

.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart The entire mideast will rally to them, and any movements among moderate Iranians to get rid of their Islamic leadership with evaporate overnight, rallying patrioticallly to the defense of their nation agaisnt the Great Satan.

This is the main point (lost, as ever, on the Bungling Busheviks). The hardliners in Tehran must be holding special Friday prayers begging Allah for a US attack, which will ensure them an indefinite term in office.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Sonart . {{Hangs head in dispare}} Dear gawd... IF this is true -- Bush has yet again arrogantly overestimated our military dominance. IF this is true, I predict that Iran will offer their own October surprise, such as sinking a couple of U.S. Navy ships. Thus committed to an open conflict, where does Boy George go from there??? .

It won't be U.S. Navy ships, it will be a couple of supertankers going down in the Strait of Hormuz. With about 40% of the world's oil passing through every day, the Iranians will make sure that every nation pays for a U.S. strike.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zeebadee It won't be U.S. Navy ships, it will be a couple of supertankers going down in the Strait of Hormuz. With about 40% of the world's oil passing through every day, the Iranians will make sure that every nation pays for a U.S. strike.

Entirely possible, but a vastly bigger coup if they can sink, say, a U.S. minesweeper or, if they really do have some serious military technology under wraps, a larger warship. But yes, sinking a tanker would be effective... and would scare the piss out of oil consuming nations.

.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart . Entirely possible, but a vastly bigger coup if they can sink, say, a U.S. minesweeper or, if they really do have some serious military technology under wraps, a larger warship. But yes, sinking a tanker would be effective... and would scare the piss out of oil consuming nations. .

As an aside, tankers are remarkably difficult to sink. They are one of the few ships whose cargo is lighter than water. Crude oil is also surprisingly difficult to set on fire in an enclosed space.

The Iranians know a lot about this because the during the Iran/Iraq war the Iraqi air force attacked many tankers chartered to Iran with Exocet missles. An Exocet for all intents and purposes destroyed the British Sheffield at the Falklands and the USN Stark in the Gulf. They did relatively little damage to a typical VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier). Ironically, war ships which are built to be light and fast and are full of people, electronics and high explosives are far more vulnerable than slow and huge merchant ships built of heavy mild steel.

[BobbyO]

In 2004, the "October Surprise" was going to be the capture of Osama Bin Laden, who we were told by the professional paranoids, had been in captivity for several months (even the former Sec of State Albright said it was possible). Now its an attack on Iran, either by the USa or Israel. Neither is going to happen.

Israel cant get to iran without massive supprt from the USA and there would be no point, for the USa to let Israel do it. It is absolutely ridiculous to suppose Israeli ground troops in Iran.

The asumption being made is that a USA move against Iran is illegitimate and counterproductive. Both claims are false.

Illegitimate- There can be no doubt that the Islamic Republic backs terror and seeks to impose its brand of Islamic fundamentalism across the mid east. Its been their gooal since '79. They have been hemmed in by the USA, Israel and, until 1990, Iraq. Now, it is entirely justifiable to simply take an isolationist viewpoint and say, Who cares if the Shiite fundamentalism is spread across the mideast and engulfs Sunnis, or Wahhabis or other moderate Moslems. However, this is never done and the cover always seems to be that the problem is entirely of the USA making.
However, those who think that Shiite fundamentalism ought to be blunted, like maybe Sunni arabs and Americans who are interested in defending freedom, will note that an nuclear armed Iran will make the task of stopping that spread that much more difficult.

Counterproductive- Not all Moslems are Shiites, not all moslems are Arab, we keep hearing about the "arab street" which never seems to rise despite all the hysterical claims to the contrary. Nobody seems to suppose that maybe Arabs and Moslems all do not wish to live in tyranny, that all do not wish to pray five days per week, or that there is not denominational differences which exist.
And maybe there is value in displaying that the West will kick back, that THEIR decisions can have consequences as well. .

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Israel cant get to iran without massive supprt from the USA and there would be no point, for the USa to let Israel do it. It is absolutely ridiculous to suppose Israeli ground troops in Iran.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Israel would send ground troops. The US did however provide the Israelis with bunker busters and cruise missles. That would be more than enough to start the fight.

Quote by: BobbyO The asumption being made is that a USA move against Iran is illegitimate and counterproductive. Both claims are false.

There is nothing like the arrogance of an empire that claims the right to invade any country and kill any country's people as it sees fit.

Quote by: BobbyO Illegitimate- There can be no doubt that the Islamic Republic backs terror and seeks to impose its brand of Islamic fundamentalism across the mid east. Its been their gooal since '79. They have been hemmed in by the USA, Israel and, until 1990, Iraq. Now, it is entirely justifiable to simply take an isolationist viewpoint and say, Who cares if the Shiite fundamentalism is spread across the mideast and engulfs Sunnis, or Wahhabis or other moderate Moslems. However, this is never done and the cover always seems to be that the problem is entirely of the USA making. However, those who think that Shiite fundamentalism ought to be blunted, like maybe Sunni arabs and Americans who are interested in defending freedom, will note that an nuclear armed Iran will make the task of stopping that spread that much more difficult.

If the topic was not a war, these comments would be extremely funny. The Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq has strengthened the Shi'a fundamentalists in Iran immeasurably. Now the neocon crazies want to attack Iran, which will only further strengthen the extremists. If the occupation of Iraq is a bloody fiasco, an attack on Iraq would only be worse.

Quote by: BobbyO Counterproductive- Not all Moslems are Shiites, not all moslems are Arab, we keep hearing about the "arab street" which never seems to rise despite all the hysterical claims to the contrary. Nobody seems to suppose that maybe Arabs and Moslems all do not wish to live in tyranny, that all do not wish to pray five days per week, or that there is not denominational differences which exist. And maybe there is value in displaying that the West will kick back, that THEIR decisions can have consequences as well. .

Well you recieve points for knowing that Iranians are Shi'a. Referring to them as Arabs is silly. Persians really hate being called Arabs. You are delusional if you think that an attack on Iran by a foreign power will do anything but increase both nationalistic and religous furvour, doubly so as the US overthrew the democratically elected government to install a dictator within the living memory of most Iranians.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp I don't think anyone has suggested that Israel would send ground troops. The US did however provide the Israelis with bunker busters and cruise missles. That would be more than enough to start the fight. Or Iran building nukes. Why must the assumption always be that others react to what the USA or Israel does? Perhaps the USa is reacting to what others are doing? There is nothing like the arrogance of an empire that claims the right to invade any country and kill any country's people as it sees fit. Amusing considering the support Iran gives to Hezbollah. If the topic was not a war, these comments would be extremely funny. The Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq has strengthened the Shi'a fundamentalists in Iran immeasurably. Now the neocon crazies want to attack Iran, which will only further strengthen the extremists. If the occupation of Iraq is a bloody fiasco, an attack on Iraq would only be worse. And Shiite and Sunni fundamentalism was not strengthened when the USa did nothing in response to the first twin tower attack, the bombing of the embassy ect.? Please. Well you recieve points for knowing that Iranians are Shi'a. Referring to them as Arabs is silly. Persians really hate being called Arabs. You are delusional if you think that an attack on Iran by a foreign power will do anything but increase both nationalistic and religous furvour, doubly so as the US overthrew the democratically elected government to install a dictator within the living memory of most Iranians.

Oh, it might increase religious fervor. But I am sure some other excuse could be found. As to the "overthrowing a democratically elected government, again high amusement caused. The Islamic Repblic is a dictatorship, my friend.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Oh, it might increase religious fervor. But I am sure some other excuse could be found. As to the "overthrowing a democratically elected government, again high amusement caused. The Islamic Repblic is a dictatorship, my friend.

Sweet Jaysus. Once again the neo-cons proudly display an ignorance of even recent history. Are you that uniformed that you really don't know why the Iranians hate the US government?

I was referring to the 1953 overthrown of the freely elected Iranian government by the CIA which installed the Shah of Iran, who was indeed a dictator. If the US had not crushed Iranian democracy in 1953, the Khomenhi revolution of 1979 would never have happened. The Islamic Republic of Iran is at least more democratic than the Shah. The Iranians associate the US with the imposition of a dictatorship and now bubble-headed neocons are predicting that a US attack on Iran will be welcomed by the Iranians? Where have we heard this nonsense before? To believe it all you need to do is to ignore history and common sense.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BobbyO In 2004, the "October Surprise" was going to be the capture of Osama Bin Laden, who we were told by the professional paranoids, had been in captivity for several months (even the former Sec of State Albright said it was possible). Now its an attack on Iran, either by the USa or Israel. Neither is going to happen.

I wouldn't disagree with you, Bobby. After all, such an operation as described would be incredibly stupid. I'd like nothing better than to believe it's a rumor... although I'm impressed that you've expanded a speculative rumor of a possible U.S. naval blockade into Israeli troops on the ground in Iran. That would be galactically stupid, and even the Israelis aren't that dumb.

Quote by: BobbyO Counterproductive- Not all Moslems are Shiites, not all moslems are Arab, we keep hearing about the "arab street" which never seems to rise despite all the hysterical claims to the contrary. Nobody seems to suppose that maybe Arabs and Moslems all do not wish to live in tyranny, that all do not wish to pray five days per week, or that there is not denominational differences which exist. And maybe there is value in displaying that the West will kick back, that THEIR decisions can have consequences as well.

All evidence to the contrary so far.

Iraq war called primary extremist recruiting tool

.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp Sweet Jaysus. Once again the neo-cons proudly display an ignorance of even recent history. Are you that uniformed that you really don't know why the Iranians hate the US government? I was referring to the 1953 overthrown of the freely elected Iranian government by the CIA which installed the Shah of Iran, who was indeed a dictator. If the US had not crushed Iranian democracy in 1953, the Khomenhi revolution of 1979 would never have happened. The Islamic Republic of Iran is at least more democratic than the Shah. The Iranians associate the US with the imposition of a dictatorship and now bubble-headed neocons are predicting that a US attack on Iran will be welcomed by the Iranians? Where have we heard this nonsense before? To believe it all you need to do is to ignore history and common sense.

This is so ridiculous. First of all, the Shah was never "installed" by the USA in 1953. He was already there. There had been a Shah for a thousand years. What happened in 1953 was that Mossadegh was attempting to (illegally by the way) crush the power which the Shah did have, while simutaneously moving closer to Moscow.

There is no direct line from 1953 to 1979. Mossadegh was a secular guy, whom Khomeni et. al. would have hated as much as he did the Shah. The Islamic fundamentalists would have targeted him, and his ideological descendents as visciously as they actually did the shah. So kindly dispel with the rubble that the USA "caused" the '79 revolt. It ain't so.

And even if you wish to say that the lack of democracy in Iran inspired, encouraged strengthened ect. the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists, what is the objection to the USA overthrowing a tyrant in Iraq and working to build a democratic state there? That it strengthens the hand if the Islamic fundamentalists? The USA is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Quote by: Sonart . I wouldn't disagree with you, Bobby. After all, such an operation as described would be incredibly stupid. I'd like nothing better than to believe it's a rumor... although I'm impressed that you've expanded a speculative rumor of a possible U.S. naval blockade into Israeli troops on the ground in Iran. That would be galactically stupid, and even the Israelis aren't that dumb. All evidence to the contrary so far. Iraq war called primary extremist recruiting tool .

there was a post on this thread which speculated Israeli ground troops in Iran. i did not originate it.

EVERYTHING to resist Islamic fundamentalism is going be a cause for increased recruiting amongst Islamic fundamentalists.