10 outcomes on war with Iran

[Revoltingest]

U.S. Central Command believes it can destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s conventional armed forces in
about three weeks using air and sea strikes, according to a defense source familiar with the discussions.

Pentagon is planning 'contingency' for Iran and North Korea - Washington Times

Isn't this the same government which projected in 2003, that the Iraq war could be done quickly & cheaply?
We'd be welcomed as heroes? Iraq would finance its own reconstruction?Didn't turn out even remotely as planned, eh?

 

[England my lionheart]

Pentagon is planning 'contingency' for Iran and North Korea - Washington Times

Isn't this the same government which projected in 2003, that the Iraq war could be done quickly & cheaply?
We'd be welcomed as heroes? Iraq would finance its own reconstruction?Didn't turn out even remotely as planned, eh?

I think a war with Iran could be over quite quickly but as we know its the peace that cost the lives and money,theres nothing unusual about making contingency plans though,i would expect my Government to do the same.

 

[work in progress]

I think a war with Iran could be over quite quickly but as we know its the peace that cost the lives and money,theres nothing unusual about making contingency plans though,i would expect my Government to do the same.

Yes, it's always the "peace" that costs the most in money and casualties! We've seen this movie before many times, and yes, England will play their small role - maybe they'll be allotted a province to occupy this time around also. And, what's new from Canada, is that (unless we can shove out our Conservative Government...that's dropping in the polls) we will be stuck playing a lackey role also to any U.S. invasion of Iran.

We lucked out the last time around because we had a Liberal Government at the time. And our Liberal Party has always made a point of keeping an arm's-length relationship from America, especially on foreign policy. Chretien was smart enough to be skeptical of the WMD claims, and would only go along with a modest peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. As soon as Harper got in, he went over to do Bush-style photo ops with our troops, and ramped up our role from protecting Kandahar from the Taliban - to bringing in tanks and going on seek-and-destroy missions. So, I expect that this time around, our government will filling in some subordinate role deemed appropriate by the U.S.

 

[work in progress]

Pentagon is planning 'contingency' for Iran and North Korea - Washington Times

Isn't this the same government which projected in 2003, that the Iraq war could be done quickly & cheaply?
We'd be welcomed as heroes? Iraq would finance its own reconstruction?Didn't turn out even remotely as planned, eh?

Yep! And, since I try to read some of the comments on the sites where articles are posted, to get a feel for how that audience sees the issue - I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that even a staunch Neocon propagandist organ like WT has a significant minority of negative comments about this story. I assume they are coming from the "Fortress America" type of conservatives and/or libertarians who just want to put a wall around U.S. borders...but whatever the reasons, there are a lot of voices outside of that broad, mushy middleground that aren't falling for any strategies to get another war started. The problem is that, after decades of allowing the Republican and Democratic Parties to create an effective duopoly, there is no feasible strategy for breaking through their log-jam with any effective third parties on either the left or the right.

During the Bush Administration, there was no effective opposition from the right, either within or outside of the Republican Party, and since "Regime Change" was a legacy of pre-Vietnam Democratic policy advisers, the bulk of the Democratic Party went along with the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan also.

This time around, the Uniparty in Washington has completed the job the Bush Administration did on civil rights and human rights so completely, that the Democrats are running with slogans like:"Osama is dead, and GM is alive." There have been no Democrats...with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, who have challenged the Obama Administration on continuing a state of undeclared permanent war to justify extra-judicial killings, torture, "extraordinary renditions" or creating the classification of "enemy combatant" where detainees can be permanently incarcerated anywhere in the world permanently, without any recourse to a legal defense or a trial. Another blatant violation of U.S. law was the assassination by missile attack of a U.S. citizen in Yemen, for the crime of advocating on behalf of Al Qaeda...questionable whether supporting U.S. enemies is a crime....if it is, so much for free speech...but even at that, no attempt was made to capture Anwar al-Awlaki and apply due process. Instead, he was the subject of a targeted killing that the U.S.-supported government in Yemen allowed, and would not allow investigators in to observe the aftermath of the missile attack and talk to survivors to determine the accuracy of stories that many others unconnected to Awlaki were killed and injured during that missile attack. It has also gone completely unnoticed in U.S. media from so called left to right, that Awlaki's 16 year old son was killed in a separate missile attack a couple of weeks later. No attempt was made to justify the attack or answer whether the son was the chosen target.

All this put together sure paints a picture that the U.S. is almost finished its transition to a pure fascist state -- where the rule of force abrogates any inconveniences of rule of law. The U.S. can no longer claim to be a "nation not ruled by men, but ruled by law" if I got it right. And through all of this, the dissenting voices on the left whom the Democratic Party depended on to have anti-war marches during the Bush Administration have been shut down by the Democratic corporate-sponsored lobby groups like Center For American Progress, which started rolling back the funding for groups they sponsored once they got Obama in the Whitehouse. Liberal civil rights activists who failed to overlook the new Obama Administration's continued use of the Bush Admin policies and tactics, like Glenn Greenwald, found themselves relegated to the internet, and not welcomed on the MSNBC shows that follow the Party line.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep! And, since I try to read some of the comments on the sites where articles are posted, to get a feel for how that audience sees the issue - I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that even a staunch Neocon propagandist organ like WT has a significant minority of negative comments about this story. I assume they are coming from the "Fortress America" type of conservatives and/or libertarians who just want to put a wall around U.S. borders...

I don't think you understand libertarians.
We don't favor fortresses.

 

[1robin]

I don't think you understand libertarians.
We don't favor fortresses.

If they don't then libertarians won't last long even though I agree with many of their stances. Pacafism is a luxury of the geographically isolated or the proud owners of nothing worth takeing. Revoltingquest why are you so interested in this topic? If you don't mind me asking

 

[Nashitheki]

That's exactly what they said about the Iraqis before we invaded and killed 250,000 of their civilians and made another 4 million homeless. They'll just love us in Iran, given our record.

"Just as a side note, much of the Iranian population has no problem with Americans. In fact, many in Iran would be glad to see a regime change"

Standard parroted line. I remember them saying exactly that about the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they don't then libertarians won't last long even though I agree with many of their stances. Pacafism is a luxury of the geographically isolated or the proud owners of nothing worth takeing.

We aren't pacifists. We're non-aggressionists.
A strong defense is good. We're big on having everyone mind their own business.
Foreign adventurism (ie, meddling in a costly way) is what we abhor.
Every libertarian I know owns guns. Some of us carry them daily.
We try to avoid trouble, but we're more prepared than most.
That's who we are.

Revoltingquest why are you so interested in this topic? If you don't mind me asking

Do you mean war with Iran? If so, I have several reasons.
- The US isn't good at waging limited war.
- We don't judge costs & benefits well.
- We don't have the stomach to endure a long conflict.
- At the moment, the Iranian population generally likes us. War would change that overnight.
- Our economy is in da terlit, & we can little afford another Iraq or Afghanistan.
- The looming US & Israel vs Iran war strikes me as a largely religious conflict, fueled by Israeli paranoia, Xian anti-Muslim sentiment, & oil concerns.
- We should try peaceful relations for a change. No military attacks, no coups, no embargoes, no covert operations, no computer hacking, etc.
- I know many Iranian immigrants, & see that Iran is misrepresented in our media so as to whip up hysteria.
- If their regime is to change, then they need to do it. We'd only muck it up.

 

[work in progress]

I don't think you understand libertarians.
We don't favor fortresses.

But I do understand that libertarians who have remained in the Republican Party have done an about-face on a number of issues in the last 10 years -- the big one being Open Borders (and that includes Ron Paul, who started following the party line on fences and shooting Mexicans coming across to keep his job in the House).

Back when I used to consider myself a libertarian, the U.S. Libertarian Party was focusing a lot of their efforts on Latinos, and they presented a theme that all government had to do to stop excessive illegal immigration was to cut any and all social benefits, and illegals would leave if they couldn't find work. That ideological line of thinking got shouted down by the ones who wanted border fences and laws requiring anyone looking Mexican have the proper photo ID or get handed over to ICE and end up shipped across the Mexican border...even if they weren't from Mexico to begin with.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes, it's always the "peace" that costs the most in money and casualties! We've seen this movie before many times, and yes, England will play their small role - maybe they'll be allotted a province to occupy this time around also. And, what's new from Canada, is that (unless we can shove out our Conservative Government...that's dropping in the polls) we will be stuck playing a lackey role also to any U.S. invasion of Iran.

We lucked out the last time around because we had a Liberal Government at the time. And our Liberal Party has always made a point of keeping an arm's-length relationship from America, especially on foreign policy. Chretien was smart enough to be skeptical of the WMD claims, and would only go along with a modest peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. As soon as Harper got in, he went over to do Bush-style photo ops with our troops, and ramped up our role from protecting Kandahar from the Taliban - to bringing in tanks and going on seek-and-destroy missions. So, I expect that this time around, our government will filling in some subordinate role deemed appropriate by the U.S.

I don't consider any country that puts its people into a conflict as playing a small role,to be honest though it is fighting a war with your hands tied behind your back,as a result its neither a peacekeeping role or a full aggressive confrontation,its just a hole to kick lives and money into.

 

[1robin]

We aren't pacifists. We're non-aggressionists.
A strong defense is good. We're big on having everyone mind their own business.
Foreign adventurism (ie, meddling in a costly way) is what we abhor.
Every libertarian I know owns guns. Some of us carry them daily.
We try to avoid trouble, but we're more prepared than most.
That's who we are.

I was mainly kidding I don't know the details of Libertarianism except it's better than democrat. I thought your no fortress position meant pacifism.

Do you mean war with Iran? If so, I have several reasons.
- The US isn't good at waging limited war.
- We don't judge costs & benefits well.
- We don't have the stomach to endure a long conflict.
- At the moment, the Iranian population generally likes us. War would change that overnight.
- Our economy is in da terlit, & we can little afford another Iraq or Afghanistan.
- The looming US & Israel vs Iran war strikes me as a largely religious conflict, fueled by Israeli paranoia, Xian anti-Muslim sentiment, & oil concerns.
- We should try peaceful relations for a change. No military attacks, no coups, no embargoes, no covert operations, no computer hacking, etc.
- I know many Iranian immigrants, & see that Iran is misrepresented in our media so as to whip up hysteria.
- If their regime is to change, then they need to do it. We'd only muck it up.

I agree with most of what you have said here except Israel's paranoia. Israel however specializes in this, is already hated, and would be the first to lose if Iran does produce a nuke. We have already been down this road so I will quit sqwalking.

 

[work in progress]

I don't consider any country that puts its people into a conflict as playing a small role,to be honest though it is fighting a war with your hands tied behind your back,as a result its neither a peacekeeping role or a full aggressive confrontation,its just a hole to kick lives and money into.

I agree that a lot of these small proxy wars have little justification other than serving as an excuse for defense contractors to push more product. But nowadays, I'm more cynical about the possible underlying motivations behind them.

In Iraq for example: we have one of the last places in the World that still contains petroleum deposits that are close to the surface, and cheap to access and pump out of the ground...that's not factoring in the security costs of armed installations and security convoys to move men and equipment to and fro. The War likely had more to do with kicking out those Russian and French oil companies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and turning it over to the international oil conglomerates that are running much of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraq War may not be profitable for the U.S. as a whole, and America will never recoup the 3 trillion+ that the Iraq War will end up costing once all of the veteran's medical and disability costs are added to the bill; but Haliburton sure profited from the War! And so did the oil companies who are in charge under the new regime in Baghdad.

Even if Afghanistan..at first glance we might think that this overpopulated, drought-stricken wasteland offers nothing to global business...unless we take note of those stories that pop up in the news every now and then about estimated $billions worth of rare earth elements that are being surveyed and mapped out in eastern and southern Afghanistan. Once again, the U.S. taxpayer will lose on the deal; but many corporations, as well as their paid politicians will reap big returns whenever mining operations begin taking rare earths out of the ground.

Other M.E. hotspots: interesting to note that bringing democracy to Libya, was such a high priority on the Obama Administration's priority list...and it was also noteworthy that the sudden turn against Gaddafi (the dictator they had reached a long-standing accommodation with) saw a better deal for U.S.-based oil companies after "democracy" was brought to Libya. Bringing democracy to Yemen doesn't seem to be a priority...but then again, they don't have any oil. And the local dictator allows U.S. drones to fly in and bomb any suspected Al Qaeda member in the country. Syria: well they make noises about regime change, but most of the pressure seems to be coming from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority nations, that want a Sunni-dominated regime installed in Damascus. Even Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels...politics makes strange bedfellows as they say!

And then there's Bahrain! If there ever was a clear example of a despotic, dictatorial regime that does not represent the majority of the people -- this would be it! But, that local potentate hosts the major U.S. naval base in the Gulf, and has American oil companies pumping their oil out of the ground....so, no one cares that the Bahrain Government is guilty of crimes that go beyond what the other dictators were capable of, (as far as I am aware, they are the only ones who have gone right into hospitals to kill or main wounded demonstrators, as well as arresting doctors for treating the wounded in the hospitals). But what the majority of Bahrainis want attracts little interest from U.S. media and no interest from the Obama Administration, because the Regime supports U.S. interests, and is propped up by Saudi troops, who also have a stake in maintaining a Sunni-minority regime in charge of a Shiite-majority populace.

So, when I look at the big picture, I see the major wars and the minor proxy wars as an example of the costs of maintaining empire. Most Americans (and this includes U.S. satellites - Canada and England) aren't aware that they have an empire! Many on the right probably still believe George Bush's stupid rationale for terrorism: "they hate us because of our freedoms!" No, and whether you like the terrorism and the other extreme reactions to U.S. foreign policy or not, they hate us because we are sucking their resources out of the ground and propping up regimes that represent foreign interests in their countries. If the U.S. and every other Western nation doesn't want to have to spend the money and blood on expensive militaries, the only alternative is to end the empires, and leave Exxon, BP and Chevron to negotiate oil contracts with the locals without having access to the big stick of gunboat diplomacy to have their way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was mainly kidding I don't know the details of Libertarianism except it's better than democrat. I thought your no fortress position meant pacifism.

I don't claim that we're better...we just have our preferences.

I agree with most of what you have said here except Israel's paranoia. Israel however specializes in this, is already hated, and would be the first to lose if Iran does produce a nuke. We have already been down this road so I will quit sqwalking.

Actually, I think they're largely immune to an Iranian nuke, given that the US & Israel would retaliate overwhelmingly.
Iran knows this.
Note: Israel just got another nuke capable submarine on sale from Germany.
This would further make an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel unlikely. Tis the old cold war MAD strategy.

 

[cablescavenger]

Armageddon Online - 10 Key Outcomes From War With Iran That Few Are Talking About

Would it really be a good idea to go to war with Iran? Is it worth our security to protect Israel? And why can't we leave the Middle East alone? No good can come with going to war with Iran. And yet, it almost seems inevitable that we will. Will Washington really think this through?

[youtube]LVB6DeGE1NY[/youtube]
Try listening to Hans Blix.

 

[Sunstone]

Will Washington really think this through?

So far as I can make out, the Foreign policy community in Washington does not think. Instead, it is largely comprised of people who pose as Very Serious Thinkers, but who do little besides pose as such. They are ideologues, not intellectuals.

 

[work in progress]

I'm beginning to feel that war with Iran is inevitable and beyond debate now at the White House. It's just a matter of getting all the chess pieces lined up:
Clinton to India: Back Off the Iran Oil

Map: US bases encircle Iran

 

[England my lionheart]

I agree that a lot of these small proxy wars have little justification other than serving as an excuse for defense contractors to push more product. But nowadays, I'm more cynical about the possible underlying motivations behind them.

Me too,i doubt they are for freedom and love of humanity otherwise we shouldn't stop till we get to China.

In Iraq for example: we have one of the last places in the World that still contains petroleum deposits that are close to the surface, and cheap to access and pump out of the ground...that's not factoring in the security costs of armed installations and security convoys to move men and equipment to and fro. The War likely had more to do with kicking out those Russian and French oil companies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and turning it over to the international oil conglomerates that are running much of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraq War may not be profitable for the U.S. as a whole, and America will never recoup the 3 trillion+ that the Iraq War will end up costing once all of the veteran's medical and disability costs are added to the bill; but Haliburton sure profited from the War! And so did the oil companies who are in charge under the new regime in Baghdad.

There are other contracts too,i read an article that slick Dick Cheney has made a few Bucks out of transporting goods to Bases.

Even if Afghanistan..at first glance we might think that this overpopulated, drought-stricken wasteland offers nothing to global business...unless we take note of those stories that pop up in the news every now and then about estimated $billions worth of rare earth elements that are being surveyed and mapped out in eastern and southern Afghanistan. Once again, the U.S. taxpayer will lose on the deal; but many corporations, as well as their paid politicians will reap big returns whenever mining operations begin taking rare earths out of the ground.

I agree,forget countries,it really is the rise of the corporations and they are pulling the strings.

Other M.E. hotspots: interesting to note that bringing democracy to Libya, was such a high priority on the Obama Administration's priority list...and it was also noteworthy that the sudden turn against Gaddafi (the dictator they had reached a long-standing accommodation with) saw a better deal for U.S.-based oil companies after "democracy" was brought to Libya. Bringing democracy to Yemen doesn't seem to be a priority...but then again, they don't have any oil. And the local dictator allows U.S. drones to fly in and bomb any suspected Al Qaeda member in the country. Syria: well they make noises about regime change, but most of the pressure seems to be coming from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority nations, that want a Sunni-dominated regime installed in Damascus. Even Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels...politics makes strange bedfellows as they say!

It makes me sick to the stomache that we should do business with Saudi Arabia,and yes Al Qaeda have their fingers in the Pie of Syria,politics does indeed make strange bedfellows especially in the bigger picture.

And then there's Bahrain! If there ever was a clear example of a despotic, dictatorial regime that does not represent the majority of the people -- this would be it! But, that local potentate hosts the major U.S. naval base in the Gulf, and has American oil companies pumping their oil out of the ground....so, no one cares that the Bahrain Government is guilty of crimes that go beyond what the other dictators were capable of, (as far as I am aware, they are the only ones who have gone right into hospitals to kill or main wounded demonstrators, as well as arresting doctors for treating the wounded in the hospitals). But what the majority of Bahrainis want attracts little interest from U.S. media and no interest from the Obama Administration, because the Regime supports U.S. interests, and is propped up by Saudi troops, who also have a stake in maintaining a Sunni-minority regime in charge of a Shiite-majority populace.

Basically its the same situation as Iraq where a Sunni minority ruled a Shi'tte majority,like i said,we're not involved for the love of the common people,personally i don't see any good comming from either.

So, when I look at the big picture, I see the major wars and the minor proxy wars as an example of the costs of maintaining empire. Most Americans (and this includes U.S. satellites - Canada and England) aren't aware that they have an empire! Many on the right probably still believe George Bush's stupid rationale for terrorism: "they hate us because of our freedoms!" No, and whether you like the terrorism and the other extreme reactions to U.S. foreign policy or not, they hate us because we are sucking their resources out of the ground and propping up regimes that represent foreign interests in their countries. If the U.S. and every other Western nation doesn't want to have to spend the money and blood on expensive militaries, the only alternative is to end the empires, and leave Exxon, BP and Chevron to negotiate oil contracts with the locals without having access to the big stick of gunboat diplomacy to have their way.

Its poignant "the big stick of gunboat diplomacy" as we sent a Destroyer to the Falkland Islands to protect our little oil project.

As for empires,these are really corporation empires,unless you are a shareholder, there is no benefit to me or thee or the unfortunate civilians caught in the middle.