My Prediction if we attack Iran.

It is believed that Bush will attack Iran before November.

A”…well-placed source in Washington as saying: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in Limbo.” The source also said Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democrat, to deal with Iran decisively…”

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/16/as_cheney_pushes_bush_to_attack

This is a horrible idea for many reasons:

“…Iran does not currently represent an existential threat to the United States or its allies, and there is still time to find a peaceful solution…”

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/..._capabilities/

• Iran could attack U.S. naval forces and commercial oil tankers operating in the Persian Gulf, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Iran could attack U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
• Iran could use its proxy forces such as Hezbollah to attack Israel, topple the fragile Lebanese government, or terrorize soft targets like embassies, commercial centers, or American citizens.
• A truly effective military strike would be a time-consuming and extensive operation, thus increasing the risk of retaliation against American forces.
• Any setback to the Iranian nuclear program would be only temporary.
• Oil prices would go sky high--experts predict over $200 per barrel and $5 per gallon.
• A global economic recession could be triggered if Moqtada al-Sadr got involved.
• Conventional attacks would kill thousands of Iranian civilians.
• Should the U.S. use nuclear "bunker busters," civilian casualties would be incalculable and international condemnation would be universal.
• Global determination to build nuclear weapons would be reinforced, possibly leading to a renewed arms race.
• An attack on Iran would undoubtedly strengthen hard line extremists.
• The attacks would unite the Iranian population against the U.S.
• American intelligence about Iranian facilities is inconclusive.
• American intelligence estimates that Iran is at least five to ten years away from building nuclear weapons

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/...iran_bad_idea/

But most of all, I strongly believe that if we go to war with Iran, it was start WWIII, and then Bush will NEVER leave!

WATCH THIS VIDEO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

__________________
Vote Obama/Biden on November 4, 2008.

My prediction, Butercupp, is World War III...and I'm not kidding.

Here's a little something I wrote for The Conceptual Guerilla a couple years ago that will explain just what I mean...

Word came down from the Pentagon early in October of 2006 that the nuclear battleship USS Eisenhower and it's Strike Group--including a cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate and assorted supply ships--left Norfolk Naval Base, steaming for the Middle East to take part in maneuvers just off the coast of Iran. This was NOT because Iran has done anything to us, you understand...at least not since the hostage crisis that capsized Jimmy Carter's presidency. It's just because the neoconservative nutjobs in this blighted administration wanted to start more trouble. And because they could.

What's almost funny is that were saying ALL the same things that they said in the run-up to Iraq. "Weapons of Mass Destruction!" "Regime change!" "Greeted as liberators!" What's not funny in the least is that someone in a position to make these decisions was actually listening to this claptrap as if they'd never heard it ever before. Listen: On a 1-10 Scale of Atrocious Ideas, screwing around with Iran is approximately a 13...

Nobody paid a scrap of attention to the October 1st peace demonstration at Gate 5 of the base; YOU didn't hear about it on the news, did you? But that small yet potent strike group was said to be one of several under orders to position itself in readiness outside the Straits of Hormuz, off the coast of Iran. And there's no comfort to be had in the belief that "Oh, they couldn't be crazy enough to do THAT" because we all know, deep down in our heart of hearts, that yes, they certainly COULD be crazy enough...especially Cheney, directing operations from his undisclosed location deep in the bowels of Hell. The cover story has emerged that US-led naval exercises are to be conducted in November with Bahrain, Kuwait, France and the UK.

Better ideas than this have germinated while doing Ron Rico 151, Valium and whippets. Simultaneously.

I should mention that the USS Enterprise (Ouch!), a Navy flagship nuclear aircraft carrier, was ALREADY in the Persian Gulf with Carrier Strike Group 12, Destroyer Squadron 2 and Carrier Air Wing 1. These units were all approaching the end of a tour which is customarily six months long. If they are kept on station there, it could be a concrete indication of trouble in River City.

Scared yet?

Neocon know-nothings who railroaded us--well, SOME of us--into accepting war with Iraq have tried mightily to make a big deal of Iran's nuclear program, playing down the fact that they're almost certainly at least a decade away from functioning thermonuclear devices. It's not too difficult to imagine that the Mullahs might want them, either, as the instability in that part of the world increases on an almost daily basis. And the US, along with our partner-in-crime Israel, does little more than fan the flames. Hey, if I was in that position, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, I'd want a little atomic insurance myself! (One of the most important--and least-discussed!--facts is that Olmert's radical rightwads already have some 200 nukes...)

The history of Iran's nuclear goals seems to get lost amidst the sound of the wardrums, though. It needs to be remembered that the US supplied them with their FIRST megawatt reactor which began operating purely as a power station in 1967, under the Shah. You can almost SMELL the hypocrisy. Let us keep in mind, too, that it was president Gerald Ford who offered Tehran a US-built reprocessing facility. (This is a factory for extracting plutonium from reactor fuel, thus completing the dreaded "nuclear fuel cycle," one of the important steps toward weapons' grade fissionable materials.) Most importantly, let us NEVER forget that Beelzebub Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were ALL members of that administration and were completely in favor of this policy of promoting US investment in the program. Dollars über alles! Needless to say, both Westinghouse and General Electric jumped at the chance.

Now, I know that the flying monkeys of the far right don't give two hoots in a high wind about history...except to revise it, of course...but when you're formulating foreign policy, it DOES behoove you to grasp what the bloody blue blazes is going on around you. The magic word here is 'China.' This Asian giant has been doing business with Iran for not merely decades, but CENTURIES as part of the ancient Silk Road trade route...and both are proud, ancient non-Western civilizations with multitudinous reasons to be suspicious of us upstart Americans.

There is an immense amount of long-term Chinese investment in Iran, both commercial and technological; a great deal of the latter is military, including sophisticated weapons systems. Lately, as China has emerged as the world's 4th largest economy--and still growing like a weed!--her need for an external source of petroleum and natural gas has thrust the two still closer together. You might have heard about the $70 billion deal that was signed almost four years ago to the day and which caused the war-mongering right to blow a gasket. (China exported oil up until 1993; now all production is utilized domestically.)

On the stage of international diplomacy, it should come as no surprise that China has consistently sided with--and served to defuse US rhetoric against--her long-time ally. As a full member of the UN Security Council, China has brokered agreements with the European Union to keep tensions from escalating...and to protect hothead Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from himself.

So with China playing the part of guardian angel, Iran has been staking out territory...and making it ever more difficult for a power-mad White House to apply pressure. Tehran has made overtures toward India and there is now a $7 billion pipeline in development involving the always-thorny Pakistan, which will certainly improve relations among the three by uniting their economic interests. Russia has also been involved in extensive dealings with the Mullahs, for example, selling them the very latest in missile systems, $700 million worth of deadly TOR M1 mobile surface-to-air missiles. Each TOR is capable of tracking 48 incoming hostiles and firing at two targets simultaneously. Serious business. And that's only the very latest weapons dealing between the two. For some while now, Iran has had its own updated version of the Russian Shkval supercavitating torpedo. This lethal little beauty can travel at a blistering 200 miler per hour underwater in a vacuum bubble that reduces water resistance to nearly nothing.

It is, however, the supersonic SS-N-22 anti-ship missile known as "Sunburn" which makes any attack on Iran approach the suicidal. The Sunburn travels better than TWICE the speed of sound, barely skimming the surface of the water, and was SPECIALLY DESIGNED to defeat our Aegis radar defense system, which can neither detect it nor avoid it. (The hair-raising details of this infernal contraption are located here: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7147.htm. I am not embedding this URL because it is too important to be glossed over. If you don't read any other link here, I strongly urge you to read this one.) And the coast of Iran is said to be "armed to the teeth" with these.

Finally, Iran is a wealthy country with a fully-functioning, well-trained military. Iraq has neither...and they're giving us more than we can handle. Do you imagine that our worn down troops could prevail against fresh and splendidly-equipped ones? Make no mistake: Iran is armed and dangerous. And they are NOT kidding. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad's rash promise to "blow Israel off the map" if he is attacked, must be taken at face value; his close proximity to Jerusalem could allow him to keep it. Such an event would--inevitably!--ignite the entire Middle East and, perhaps, the rest of the world. With heavy-duty allies like India, Russia and China, any unprovoked military action against Iran would be tantamount to insanity. If the neocons can't discern this as clearly as I can, then there's more wrong with these clowns on Capital Hill than anything we've seen so far.

__________________
"Tomorrow, you're all going to wake up in a Brave New World, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorist clones created in a stem cell research laboratory, run by homosexual doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags!"

Oh come on. We are in very serious peace talks with Iran. That is why violence is way down in Iraq.
Isreal and Syria are also in serious peace talk right now.
But if we where to attack Iran they would last as long as Sadam. No one can stand up to the US military. And WW3 exactually who would be fighting who? We are the 800lb gorilla everyone else is a chimp.

Why have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 5 yrs. A 800lb Gorilla would crush a chimp at the snap of a finger.


E.Pluribus Unum

__________________
E.Pluribus Unum

People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.

Its weak too speak and blame somebody else when you destroy yourself.

Iran is too much like North Korea.

Their missiles are likely to fail or be inaccurate. Surgical strikes preceding an invasion would minimize or even eliminate missile launchings. Further strikes make it possible to eliminate the leadership from Tehran. Finally, the coalition's naval forces could easily blockade the Persian Gulf to keep any ships away from the range of Iranian missiles.

Besides all this, US Navy ships are equipped with systems to destroy missiles, nuclear or not, at a safe range.

Iran is a minor world power, and a war there could never result in WWIII, barring any NATO or Russian involvement. I repeat: Iran is not a major world power, like Israel or the US or even a smaller country like South Africa, or India (small as in political status).

__________________
Henry K.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stoff up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

"I notice that everybody who is Pro-Abortion has already been born." Ronald Reagan

There won't be a great war of any kind. Iran is simple too small and has too many enemies. It can never make a serious move because it knows it will be destroyed.

__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!

The military brass isn't on board with Bush' latest lunacy.

__________________
"I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."
-Sen. John McCain 09/22/2008

Iran is not a threat to us. We are a threat to Iran, but we'll get Israel to get things started. We want it to look like we are coming to the aide of Israel. Our goal is complete domination of the Middle East! We've got hungry Hummers to feed, and our oil corporations have gotten real fond of those $1,200 per second profits.

Heads up Iran!

__________________
"I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut

I guess that is my point. If we were to attack Iran, they know they would be destroyed so they may retaliat by bombing Israel. Then Israel bombs Iran and becase Nukes are going off. The whole world will freak out. Then bush declares the election postponed because it is war time... See my point?

__________________
Vote Obama/Biden on November 4, 2008.

I have two points to make:

First, Iran vs. the World does not constitute a world war.

Second, the effect on the price of oil would be similar to the effect that the war in Iraq had: extremely temporary and inconsequential.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard