Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan - Consider the risks.....

[CarlSheeler4U]

Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had a depleted military from the vestiges of
Desert Storm. Iran has received support from China, Russia and France.

Assuming the world's most advanced countries opted to stay on the
sidelines, do we believe that any support would be avaiable for any
subsequent attack on the US?

How could we say such an attack on our civilians was not justified
beacuse we empowered our leaders to do nothing to prevent it from
occuring? The civilian casualities would be enormous there
(Iran)...and what about blowback, as if our foreign and energy policies
since the mid 1900's are not bad enough?

How does this legitimately differ from invading Poland, Czechlosavkia
and Austria? The same saber-rattling applied as justification. Let's
say we can do it, because we can. Does this result in "might makes
right?"

What then would prevent China from invading Taiwan and South Korea
under similar pretenses? Venezuela would seek Russian support to
protect its borders and the whole option of preventive first strikes
creates justification (remember Pearl Harbor?). How about a Sino-Russo
pact if things get hairy?

The point is right here, right now we will either watch in the manner
German citizens did in the late 1930's and early 1940's as their young
men are recruited for the "noble" cause or we will act with resolve
sooner than later.

The alternative to this debacle is cut the BS and invest the tens or
hundreds of billions needed to produce alternative energy instead of
maintaining occupancy of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, which if one
bothers to examine on a world map border each other and puts Russia in
the unenviable position of spooling up its own military, nuclear
arsenal and reformation of the former Soviet bloc.

This is not a movie, this is a real take. I warned a group of College
Democrats at Brown in November that this could occur before 2010 and
they looked at me like I went to public school, which I did.

Being a Marine vet with combat and staff planning experience forces one
to think of the world in pieces of a puzzle with "what if" planning.

Now folks understand why I believe that post election 2006 and waiting
till 2008 is way too late for Impeachment. Further, putting the US in
a battle footing has historic foundation in political motivation.

The public seldom changes its elected officials in time of war and it
opens a third nightmare scenario where King George's toilet paper
called our Constitution has its amendment removed permitting a third
term in office. I think it's time to restore the color coded alerts
and declare that our country is at a red alert and the threat is from
within.

I welcome folks' thoughts and input.

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate (D-RI)
www.carlsheeler.com
[e-mail]

[tocqueville]

1. French arm sales to Iran ? yes from the Shah -period.

The only thing I found was the extension from 10 to 12 Kaman-class patrol boats, nowadays getting pretty old. Most of the Iranian stuff is bought in Russia, China, North Korea or is... Iranian...

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF113/forum113.html

this kind of stuff reminds of the famous "Roland" missiles displayed in the Washington Times as proof that France was supporting Saddam during the latest war. The problem was that those missiles were purchased pre 1991, when Saddam could legally buy what he wanted, even uranium in Italy and Brasil...

What I know of, the only western countries to provide Iran with arms during the after-Shah period were the US (contras), Israel... and Portugal (arming both sides). The West armed Iraq, not Iran.

Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviets and the French <2>, as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany <3> along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain(Explosivos Alaveses), Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. Much of Iraq's financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Iran's foreign supporters included Syria and Libya, through which it obtained Scuds. It purchased weaponry from North Korea and the People's Republic of China, notably the Silkworm antiship missile. Iran acquired weapons and parts for its Shah-era U.S. systems through covert arms transactions from officials in the Reagan Administration, first indirectly through Israel and then directly. It was hoped Iran would, in exchange, persuade several radical groups to release Western hostages, though this did not result; proceeds from the sale were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras in what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

Portugal helped both countries: it was not unusual seeing Iran and Iraqi-flag ships side-by-side in Sines, Portugal (a deep-sea port).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Besides even in case of an US-Iran regular conventional war (which is unlikely) it wouldn't be the high-tech that would be decisive. It could be easily taken out at early stages of the war.The decisive would be to fight a million army of "fanatical" Iranians armed with AK47 and IEDs in a mountainous desert... That would make the current Iraqi adventure look like a cakewalk in comparison...

[CarlSheeler4U]

2. And that is the point

You can not control land you do not occupy and the attrition would be severe

"The decisive would be to fight a million army of "fanatical" Iranians armed with AK47 and IEDs in a mountainous desert... That would make the current Iraqi adventure look like a cakewalk in comparison..."

Speaks volumes that this is the only response to this issue. Sad really.