Get ready for another war....

[Faithful Skeptic]

I agree. But I don't underestimate the Iranians' ability to smuggle a dirty bomb into the U.S. or wake up some terror cells here stateside. Akmadinejad is a certified fruitcake and he believes in his Madhi apocalyptic insanity. He would love to give us some payback if we bomb their nuclear facilities. Heck, maybe Israel can do it for us!

The only reason Iran would ever do such a thing would be as a direct reaction to further outside escalation. If they wanted to do something like that for any other reason, they would've done it by now.

As for comparing Iraq to Iran, we haven't even won in Iraq yet, so I hope people consider that reality before they begin labeling Iran as an easy target for that reason. That said, Iran most certainly has a much stronger military than Iraq did. Nothing we can't defeat, sure, but it won't be that easy. Also, their people will resist at least as long as the Iraqis have.

I really hope that conflict is avoided... Kύριε ελέησον.

 

[Macarius]

The only reason Iran would ever do such a thing would be as a direct reaction to further outside escalation. If they wanted to do something like that for any other reason, they would've done it by now.

As for comparing Iraq to Iran, we haven't even won in Iraq yet, so I hope people consider that reality before they begin labeling Iran as an easy target for that reason. That said, Iran most certainly has a much stronger military than Iraq did. Nothing we can't defeat, sure, but it won't be that easy. Also, their people will resist at least as long as the Iraqis have.

I really hope that conflict is avoided... Kύριε ελέησον.

A brief note - major combat operations have actually ended in Iraq as far as the US is concerned. We've pulled out the vast, vast majority of our troops and the war has been declared "over" in a more realistic sense. The regime change was effective (e.g. Saddam is not in power), and the present government seems capable of withstanding frequent terrorist attacks (not unlike Israel's government).

I don't know what would qualify as having "won" in Iraq, but that seems like a victory in most conventional senses of the word. Heavy cost, yes, but a victory.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

A brief note - major combat operations have actually ended in Iraq as far as the US is concerned. We've pulled out the vast, vast majority of our troops and the war has been declared "over" in a more realistic sense. The regime change was effective (e.g. Saddam is not in power), and the present government seems capable of withstanding frequent terrorist attacks (not unlike Israel's government).

I don't know what would qualify as having "won" in Iraq, but that seems like a victory in most conventional senses of the word. Heavy cost, yes, but a victory.

We still have plenty of contractors in Iraq and the embassy that we've built there is supposed to staff some 18,000 people. That said, there are currently plans to cut some of that staff, but we'll see that when it happens. I do not think, however, that the Iraqi government is at all comparable with Israel's in terms of political strength within the country. You may have only meant it in the sense that they can avoid terrorist attacks, but I don't quite understand why that is particularly noteworthy on its own. Their ability to maintain political strength/stability, which that seems to fall under, seems significantly more important. I also happen to think that's far more suspect. That said, I think our presence only ever made matters worse. As for Saddam, he was out of power within months over 8 years ago.

No, the U.S. is not leaving Iraq - Iraq - Salon.com

 

[Dorothea]

Would Turkey really side with Iran given that Iran is their major rival for regional power and on the opposite side of the Sunni / Shi'ite fence? If so, then Turkey's turn towards Islamicization is strong indeed; they'd have a lot to gain by being the US's ally against Iran.

For the record, I don't think it likely that this would turn into a world war. It might turn into a PROXY war (with the US aiding and funding Israel, and Russia or China aiding / funding Iran), but short of a nuclear option neither China nor Russia has the military (esp. naval) to engage in a conventional war with the US. That's not a slight against either Russia or China, but just the reality of the US still having a full cold-war-era military budget. Both Russia and China do have ICBM's, and those would do damage, but again (unless they use nukes, which is unlikely) they couldn't do enough damage to the US to stop our military infrastructure using just conventional-payload ICBM's. In a head-to-head war with the US, they'd lose more than we would and, as has been pointed out, BOTH would lose. Russia, China, and the US NEED one another for their globalized economies. The US has no incentive to want to go to war with either China or Russia, and vice versa.

Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? I don't think so.

Is it likely that Israel attempts a strike against Iran? Yes. VERY. Probably immanently. A regional war seems a plausible result, with foreign backing / posturing. I don't see it extending beyond that unless things just turn catastrophically insane. Our governments may be selfish, but they are rationally selfish - Iran's government I trust a lot less (e.g. I think they will start a war if Israel doesn't).

Thanks so much for sharing your view on this, Macarius. I hope you're right and it doesn't become a world war.

I saw news interviews of some "experts" saying it would lead to WWIII, but really, they don't know.

 

[Knee V]

Of course we've won the war in Iraq, just as we won in Vietnam and in Korea. The goal isn't a military victory, but rather to maintain regional unrest, as well as to have troops near Russia. As long as there is regional in-fighting in key areas, those regions cannot consolidate to rival the US's power. With Russia, it's difficult to engage them directly, so we can keep troops nearby and keep their buffer states unstable. That way it is more difficult for Russia to get any more powerful. All in all, a regional war involving Iran is consistent with what I believe to be the US's ultimate foreign policy intentions, and I believe that the US will encourage such a war deliberately.

 

[Dorothea]

I don't agree with the U.S.'s foreign policy. I see greed and power involved. JMO.

 

[athenken]

I don't agree with the U.S.'s foreign policy. I see greed and power involved. JMO.

That's a given. And pretty much the biggest reason any country gets involved in stuff like this. Of course, even though the purpose behind many of the recent wars in that region was access to oil we still are paying more now for gas than what we were paying before any of this started. Someone is making a lot of money.

 

[Knee V]

That's a given. And pretty much the biggest reason any country gets involved in stuff like this. Of course, even though the purpose behind many of the recent wars in that region was access to oil we still are paying more now for gas than what we were paying before any of this started. Someone is making a lot of money.

I disagree. I don't think that oil or resources has anything to do with our foreign policy or actions (any profit is incidental). Rather, I believe that we do what we do in order to prevent any foreign entity from being able to rival us as a world power. We are the first nation in the history of the world to control both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific trade. We plan to keep it that way.

 

[athenken]

I disagree. I don't think that oil or resources has anything to do with our foreign policy or actions (any profit is incidental). Rather, I believe that we do what we do in order to prevent any foreign entity from being able to rival us as a world power. We are the first nation in the history of the world to control both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific trade. We plan to keep it that way.

You apparently have your head in the sand about the whole oil issue, and you don't know your history that well. The British ruled the oceans up until we took them over after WWII, since well before the Revolutionary war.

But we only control the oceans because China has not been able to develop a navy that could come anywhere close to rivaling us.

 

[E.C.]

Boy I picked one heck of a time to become a Navy linguist

I read a BBC article yesterday in which Obama said he will not hesitate to "use force" on Iran if all diplomatic options had come to a halt. Iran would be a horrible place to invade. It's nearly twice the size of Iraq, the Shia are the most anti-Western Muslims (just after Wahabists and Salafists), the terrain includes a lot of desert, hills and mountains; the Christians there (Armenians and Assyrians) would be kicked out just like in other places and unless Iran throws the first punch than there will not be a war. Iranian politicians are stupid, but they're not foolish enough to begin a war against a superpower. They couldn't even win a war against Saddam back in the day!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't recall comparing Iran to Iraq?

The only reason Iran would ever do such a thing would be as a direct reaction to further outside escalation. If they wanted to do something like that for any other reason, they would've done it by now.

As for comparing Iraq to Iran, we haven't even won in Iraq yet, so I hope people consider that reality before they begin labeling Iran as an easy target for that reason. That said, Iran most certainly has a much stronger military than Iraq did. Nothing we can't defeat, sure, but it won't be that easy. Also, their people will resist at least as long as the Iraqis have.

I really hope that conflict is avoided... Kύριε ελέησον.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It gives me the willies how Russia provides arms to Iran knowing they are a terrorist state and what they use them for. ....

Technically, as much as it's scarey for Russia to be doing what you noted with terrorist states, I tend to be just as scarred when seeing what has been done in the history of the U.S. With war, it seems to often remind me of how much is stagged in order to create a situation where others get their focus off....

In example, there is the reality that many times, what others deem "terrorist" acts is simply acts of state-sponsored terrorism that the U.S. Government has sanctioned in the attempt to develop a a solution.

Terrorism is truly a means to an end.

Talked with mom about this once, as she was born/raised in Panama as were my other relatives from her side. My Great-Grandfather (who's 100yrs old) moved there from Barbados during the building of the Panama Canal to find work..and he/the family saw many wild things. My mom and our relatives have often discussed some of what went down in her homeland and what much of her side of the family often noted when it came to things we in the U.S have done around the world that are indeed "terroristic"...........long before the terrorists of 9/11 ever showed up....and yet, those affected negatively by the U.S often didn't have their own story told.

One documentary series that covers the issue:

The Panama Deception ​

Alsom, for more info:

• --"TerrorStorm Full"
• ---"U.S. Terrorism in Vietnam" ( )
• --United States and state terrorism" ( )

Zeitgeist - Part 3: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain
Zeitgeist: The Movie (HD) Part III - Men Behind the Curtain ​

ZEITGEIST-The U.S. Government IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOL!​

There's a documentary I saw years ago, concerning many of the things that may've gone down behind the scenes in the name of the American Dream and denouncing terrorism even when it seems that there were times we in the U.S have been willing to tolerate it. There'v been many ways that terrorism/suppression has often gone done with the support of the U.S (if others felt it would benefit us) and somehow it became a "right"...for we show ourselves hypocritical discussing our quest for a "war on terrorism" when we've already supported known terrorists and states for terrorism when it was seen as something we felt was necessary. Many times, the U.S. has done things such as "FALSE FLAGS" where they will either ALLOW an enemy to attack blantantly or attack themselves...and then blame it on the enemy so they can gain support from the public for enacting another policy that would benefit others.



For a good review, one can investigate the work entitled "The War On Terror: An Exercise in Hypocrisy" .

Also, as it concerns things one can investigate for themselves:

• --"US-Funded Somalia Using Child Soldiers" (( )
  

• --"Global Connections . U.S. Foreign Policy | PBS" ( )

• --"Western support for terrorism — Global Issues" ( )

• --"Child Soldiers in Somalia Fighting US War on Terror" ( )

• --"The New Children of War << Peter W. Singer , PhD* ( )

• --"UN condemns Somalia's use of child soldiers, but US aid still .flows." ( )

• --"[PDF] State-Supported Terrorism and the U.S. Courts: Some Foreign Policy" ( )
• --The United States is a Leading Terrorist StateNoam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian ( )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't think it likely that this would turn into a world war. It might turn into a PROXY war (with the US aiding and funding Israel, and Russia or China aiding / funding Iran), but short of a nuclear option neither China nor Russia has the military (esp. naval) to engage in a conventional war with the US. That's not a slight against either Russia or China, but just the reality of the US still having a full cold-war-era military budget. Both Russia and China do have ICBM's, and those would do damage, but again (unless they use nukes, which is unlikely) they couldn't do enough damage to the US to stop our military infrastructure using just conventional-payload ICBM's. In a head-to-head war with the US, they'd lose more than we would and, as has been pointed out, BOTH would lose. Russia, China, and the US NEED one another for their globalized economies. The US has no incentive to want to go to war with either China or Russia, and vice versa.

There is the reality of what could happen if an electronic attack occurred to wipe out communications, just long enough to do something damaging. And of course, BIOLOGICALLY made weapons are just as available for damage as much as nuclears..as it damages at all levels.

 

[MrJim]

Do I have to suffer another run on ammo & ARs?

 

[athenken]

Do I have to suffer another run on ammo & ARs?

That depends...do you own a gun store?

 

[Dorothea]

That's a given. And pretty much the biggest reason any country gets involved in stuff like this. Of course, even though the purpose behind many of the recent wars in that region was access to oil we still are paying more now for gas than what we were paying before any of this started. Someone is making a lot of money.

Yes, the oil companies, imo!

 

[MrJim]

That depends...do you own a gun store?

No~i'm a buyer not a seller

 

[Dorothea]

The government makes its profits on wars and oil. I know that sounds terrible, but I tend to agree with Laurence Wilkerson. I can't find the interviews my friend sent me months back, but here's one about the current deal with Israel and Iran:

Exclusive EIR Interview with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson 12 22 2011 - YouTube

 

[Ortho_Cat]

We still have plenty of contractors in Iraq and the embassy that we've built there is supposed to staff some 18,000 people. That said, there are currently plans to cut some of that staff, but we'll see that when it happens. I do not think, however, that the Iraqi government is at all comparable with Israel's in terms of political strength within the country. You may have only meant it in the sense that they can avoid terrorist attacks, but I don't quite understand why that is particularly noteworthy on its own. Their ability to maintain political strength/stability, which that seems to fall under, seems significantly more important. I also happen to think that's far more suspect. That said, I think our presence only ever made matters worse. As for Saddam, he was out of power within months over 8 years ago.

No, the U.S. is not leaving Iraq - Iraq - Salon.com

well we have alot of contractors and embassy people in alot of other countries as well...not just in Iraq.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

I don't recall comparing Iran to Iraq?

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that part generally for those that were comparing Iraq to Iran. I didn't mean to imply that you were.

well we have alot of contractors and embassy people in alot of other countries as well...not just in Iraq.

Yeah, no where near the level that we have in Iraq.