Hmmmmmm

[Skitterpop]

Mind Prep

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What war with Iran would look like

POSTED: 10:46 a.m. EDT, September 17, 2006

(Time.com) -- The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters.
The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1.
A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.
The Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5 1/2 years in office.
For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition, which includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council, that is trying to force Tehran to halt its nuclear ambitions.
But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway.
So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.
And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?
No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.
An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.
A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.
Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.
Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.
The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power.
Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis.
"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

[afterhours]

the world can't let iran become a nuclear power....period. they would get weapons into terrorists hands and there two targets that come to mind- israel and the usa. irans nuclear program WILL be neutralized, not by diplomacy, but by the sword.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by afterhours

the world can't let iran become a nuclear power....period. they would get weapons into terrorists hands and there two targets that come to mind- israel and the usa. irans nuclear program WILL be neutralized, not by diplomacy, but by the sword.

Yes indeed, the world cannot permit Iran to gain nuclear power. It's a disaster waiting to happpen. Nukes in terrosists hands is not going to be pretty, and we thought 9/11 was shocking?? Just imagine what they would do with nukes

I will support ANY action taken to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear power.

[spence]

You guys ever stop and think a lot of this simply has to do with maintaining the below market price of oil for US consumption?

If Iran is nuclear we will loose much of our ability to influnce the region as we have done for the past century.

I think the notion that Iran will give terrorists a nuke is primarily a scare tactic. Don't think for a second that MAD isn't still alive and kicking.

The real danger would be a localized Sunni/Shia war that could cripple global energy.

-spence

[afterhours]

i'm a bottom line thinker- radical islams- like those running iran have an agenda that has nothing to do with global economy. their bottom line is the destruction of israel and the usa, and the spreading of fundimental islam thru the sword- as is stated in their holy book. these people have no fear of consequenses- death? = 72 virgins in paradise. no need to overthink the situation. over and out.

[Raven]

the squeeze play on the persion gulf....to not let any oil out.

chavez is backing their play so our 14% of imported oil from
venezula will be systematically shut off too for any military actions
against Iran.

[spence]

Originally Posted by afterhours

i'm a bottom line thinker- radical islams- like those running iran have an agenda that has nothing to do with global economy. their bottom line is the destruction of israel and the usa, and the spreading of fundimental islam thru the sword- as is stated in their holy book.

Iran's agenda has everything to do with the global economy. They are waging a political war of rhetoric to manipulate energy markets and reap the short term benefits. Long term they are establishing even deeper economic ties with Russia and China to provide protection in the UN from US led actions.

Only about 20% of Iranians are really considered fundamentalists. Hell, I'd wager that Terahan has better cell coverage than Tiverton!

This is about global politics and the good old grab for economic power and leadership, and we are being outplayed.

-spence

[Bronko]

:

Originally Posted by afterhours

i'm a bottom line thinker- radical islams- like those running iran have an agenda that has nothing to do with global economy. their bottom line is the destruction of israel and the usa, and the spreading of fundimental islam thru the sword- as is stated in their holy book. these people have no fear of consequenses- death? = 72 virgins in paradise. no need to overthink the situation. over and out.

Spot on.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys ever stop and think a lot of this simply has to do with maintaining the below market price of oil for US consumption?

H'mm last time I looked oil was traded on many markets, none of which are government controlled.

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

H'mm last time I looked oil was traded on many markets, none of which are government controlled.

But the US has used heavy influence to help keep prices below what the market will bear because our GDP has depended on it.

Now that our manufacturing oil consumption has shifted to China somewhat, you can see why they are building all those aircraft carriers

-spence

[Swimmer]

Wonderful, friekin wonderful...........

[slapshot]

Is islam really a peaceful religion? Anybody here ever read an unbiased version of the teachings?

[slapshot]

"O Prophet! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding." (Surah 8:65)

"Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks [cut off their heads]; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); But (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others, but those who are slain in the way of Allah [for the cause of Allah]--He will never let their deeds be lost. Soon He will guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them." (Surah 47:4-6)

Not very peaceful

[stormfish]

I personally don't think Iraq is the root of cause for radical Islam before we invaded. The roots would be that Osama guy in Afghanistan who we've been chasing forever! Don't forget that the Clinton Administration has been chasing him for the USS Cole. Got him cornered in Pakistan, but we allowed Pakistan to harbor and refuge the SOB. Why didn't we go get him in Pakistan? And then all of a sudden, coincidentally when Saddam began to sell his oil in Euros instead of Dollars, weapons of mass destruction arised. You guys remember that? That was our trigger in the fire of Iraq. Well now, no weapons of mass destruction but we downed Saddam who got ejected out of court today, and a messed up Iraq goverment and society. Tell me Skip how is Iraq the root of cause when we have Osama in Afghanny, Iran harvesting Plutonium and Hezbollah in Lebanon. What you're saying if we have full control over Iraq all the other problems surrounding Iraq would magically disappear? There's focus elsewhere just not in Iraq who is one of the biggest oil supplier in OPEC.

Recite the Koran over and over because the Jihad part of it is becoming more and more popular amongs Muslim teachings. It was once a last resort in the name or Allah, now that they feel cornered it is their necessity to serve Allah.

Do we leave it alone? I believe we should because we are the problem in the Middle East. Let the people decide if they should take terrorist or the fulfillment route. Let's not anger them anymore and cause chaos, because like Raven annouced, "they're everywhere!" Even Mike Tyson I bet! We did our job and took Saddam out now let's get the F out!

[MakoMike]

That last post by Stormfish may have set a new record for the most factual errors in a single post!

[stormfish]

MakoMike always got something to say because he's a Bush lover! Stick to chartering~

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

That last post by Stormfish may have set a new record for the most factual errors in a single post!

Mike, glad we can agree

-spence

[Raven]

i say kill them all if they want to be terrorists for any reason....
right down to the last woman and child.

i don't care if they are white, black, chinese, italian, russian, iraqi, afghani
syrian,iranian,cuban or venezulan.....any nationality... if they want a war they die....period. F___ them all....
i'm over joyed to send them to the promised land.
even their dogs.

and that goes for any American that converts to muslim or any religion and wants to be a terrorist like that california creep
...known as the american taliban...shoot -em all and let allah sort them out....

in fact.....shoot him with the biggest gun we have....splat!!

[stripersnipr]

Stormfish: Are you actually saying to leave Terrorists alone to kill innocent Americans whenever they get they urge? I've never actually known anyone to come out and say that. Understanding that Terrorism is real and must be fought does not make a person a "Bush Lover", it only means they have common sense. When Terrorists attacked America many times be it the WTC (Twice) numerous embassy bombings, naval ships etc. etc. WE WERE NOT IN IRAQ. But if we leave Iraq now they wont do it again? How does that make any sense?

[stormfish]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

WE WERE NOT IN IRAQ. But if we leave Iraq now they wont do it again? How does that make any sense?

Uh Iraq weren't the Terrorists buddy!

[slapshot]

Convert to Islam or die.

Makes those annoying Jehovas Witnesses that come knocking seem not so annoying anymore.

[Nebe]

didnt you get the memo? its convert to democracy or die.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Nebe

didnt you get the memo? its convert to democracy or die.

Yep that Democracy is evil stuff.

[Nebe]

so is my humor

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Nebe

so is my humor

I`ve noticed your humour slowly returning since you got the vessel up and running Good for you Nebe.

[stormfish]

Holy Crap, this is what I was trying to say all this time... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/:
If the National Intelligence isn't a creditable source then I give up!

Click on 'Bush declassifies intel report' to view nightly news

[stormfish]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/