Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'Will President Bush bomb Iran?'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:39 AM
Original message
'Will President Bush bomb Iran?'
Edited on Mon Sep-03-07 10:40 AM by leftchick
Why am I only seeing this subject in foreign news sources and blogs?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran102.xml

<snip>

The Pentagon has made contact with a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, which has been conducting cross-border operations in Iran, and with Azeri and Baluchi tribesmen in northern and south-eastern Iran, who oppose the theocratic regime. By using military special forces, rather than the CIA, the administration does not have to sign a Presidential Finding, required for covert intelligence activity, or report to oversight committees in Congress.

Information on US targets has leaked from the Pentagon. B2 bombers and cruise missiles would strike up to 400 sites, only a few dozen of which are linked to the nuclear programme. B61-11 bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons would be the ultimate weapon against the heavily fortified installations; first in the crosshairs would be the main centrifuge plant at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

A Pentagon source said: "We have a targeting list and there are plans, but then there are also plans for repelling an invasion from Canada. We don't know where everything is but we do know where enough is to cause them enough damage to set back the programme."

But there are grave doubts that bombing would work. Davoud Salhuddin, a US dissident and Muslim convert living in Iran, said: "The US will not have the ability to change the regime here. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has been preparing himself for a US attack for the past 30 years. If they attack Iran, the problem of terrorism that they are trying to solve will get 100 times bigger than it is now… Americans will not feel safe in their own homes."





http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/administrations-iran-drug-policies.html

<snip>

The legal argument to bypass the U.S. Congress has already been floated. As I noted in my DailyKos post:

The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

<snip>

Finally, where are the Democrats and sensible Republicans? It's time to amend the Authorization for the Use of Military Force to make clear that it does not authorize a pre-emptive war on Iran. Congress should also stop the policy of crop eradication that is driving Afghans into the arms of the Taliban while actually increasing the size of the opium economy. Congress should shift the funding allocated for eradication to alternative development. At the moment, according to Bergen and Lalwani, in the new U.S. Strategy for Counter-Narcotics in Afghanistan:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Do bears shit in the woods?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. wasn't there something about a pope, too?
what gets me is the excitement I felt last October, when I KNEW that the wheels were coming off the toy cart known as the Bush Administration.
November left me happy. December had me hopeful, January was a little confused, February had me blue, March madness set it, April showers could not wash off the stink of dismay and betrayal, May meant more flowers for troops for their gravesites. It has been downhill since then.

We will fund Bush again for Iraq, and we won't do anything to stop his attack on Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. you left out the first word - "When"
otherwise, nice post.
that last paragraph is what befuddles me more than my normal befuddled state on mondays. Where are they is right. MIA congresscritters and Lost in Space senatwhores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. that last paragraph is way too kind
They have given all of the authority to bush and they do not care to reign him in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Left, I respect your opinion and enjoy your writing. So,
please give me your idea of "WHY"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. once upon a time, in a land far away called DC
there was a Lobby Group called AIPAC that had more power to control US foreign policy than any other. (Actually it is in the present tense) AIPAC wants the US to attack Iran and what do all of our congress critters say to that?

Here is what.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1715615&mesg_id=1723547


there is a lot of damning info in that thread. Tell me if you want more.

oh and here is how one of the prez candidates views Iran....



<snip>

Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I bow generally in your direction.
and thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why are you not seeing this? Because Senator Craig tried to have
gay sex in a bathroom. That is the only story you should be seeing. How dare you look at non MSM news sources. Aren't you a patriot? All is well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. Our local paper, The Oregonian, printed several letters to the editor about Iran
All the letters were warning that this batshit fuckhead in the White House is determined to attack Iran, and what a monumental mistake/crime that would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. Maybe, becomes more likely if its obvious a dem will win in 08.
"Something" will happen and a state of emergency declared. Then war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm sorry leftchick what did you say?
I'm kinda busy shopping to be paying any attention :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I LOVE them sales, especially them mattress ads!
And going back to skule sails too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
10. Psych ops
This is how our government sends "messages" to others in the world: Through "leaks" of military operations.

Will we attack? Or are we just bluffing?

Sometimes you say you are going to attack just so you can sit back and watch how the other side moves their assets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think he thinks
that if he can get away with it - he will.

But I don't think he can get away with it this time.

I know there are a lot of people on both the left and the right who still hate the French. I'll take a :spank: for it if I have to - but it is what it is.. . I don't hate the French. I go there often on vacation and I have made a point of doing so ever since President Numnuts declared on Airforce One that French Toast would be called Freedom Toast. :eyes: Hey, no better way to stick it to the man than to spend my money in a country that looks down on him. :rofl:

See, there's this guy in France who is willing to say what my weak-kneed Democratic Congress is unwilling to say. He's obviously holding onto their ovaries and testicles because he has all this testicular fortitude to say what many people are thinking. Granted it's on CBS news - but to get the closest story to the CBS News story I'd have to link to Le Monde.


***************************************
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/ap/europe/main3207877.shtml

Sarkozy Cautions Against Attack On Iran
French President Cautions Against Attacking Iran In Standoff Over Tehran's Nuclear Program

(AP) French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Monday that it would be "catastrophic" to resort to military force in confronting Iran over its suspect nuclear program.

"For me, Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," Sarkozy said in his first major address on foreign policy, but he stressed that he opposed an attack on the Islamic regime and urged that the West rely on diplomacy.

He said Iran can choose between dialogue with the international community or more U.N. sanctions. "This tactic is the only one that allows us to escape from a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb, or the bombing of Iran," he said.

Sarkozy also said Iran is entitled to use nuclear power for civilian needs, such as generating electricity.

If countries like Iran run out of fossil fuels, and "if they don't have the right to the energy of the future, then we will create conditions of misery and underdevelopment, and therefore an explosion of terrorism," Sarkozy said.

In other areas, the new president signaled a shift in tone from his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, casting himself as a "friend of Israel" and taking a tougher line on Russia and China.

But despite his admiration for the United States, Sarkozy said Chirac was right to oppose the war in Iraq, which he called a mistake.

Sarkozy took over from fellow conservative Chirac in May pledging to boost France's international stature. The energetic new leader quickly scored a few high-profile diplomatic coups, such as helping secure freedom for six Bulgarian medical workers jailed in Libya for nine years on charges of deliberately infecting children with AIDS.

Yet the sdiplomatic agenda he outlined Monday was relatively modest. He proposed, for example, a committee of great minds to reflect on the future of the European Union _ an unassuming proposal for the EU, which Sarkozy nonetheless called France's "absolute priority."

He also eased his opposition to Turkey's bid for membership in the EU, which he previously vowed to block. On Monday, Sarkozy said he would not oppose new talks with the Muslim state, while adding the discussions should examine the idea of a weaker alliance than membership.

"A few months after taking the presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy is realizing that he has limited room for maneuvering," said Philippe Moreau-Defarges of the French Institute for International Relations.

Sarkozy's tough language about China and Russia set him apart from Chirac, who was often criticized for too-cozy ties with authoritarian leaders.

Sarkozy warned Russia against exercising its energy exports with "brutality." And he said China was "transforming its insatiable quest for raw materials into a strategy of control, notably in Africa."

While France has a history of close ties with the Arab world, Sarkozy said: "I have the reputation of being a friend of Israel, and it's true. I will never compromise on Israel's security."

Despite that, he said, the many Arab leaders who have visited him since his election know they can count on his friendship.

Sarkozy, who spent his summer holiday in New England and whose affection for the U.S. earned him the nickname "Sarko the American," sent his foreign minister to Iraq last week to smooth over ties that were strained when Chirac opposed the U.S.-led invasion.

But friendly relations do not mean there cannot be differences of opinion, Sarkozy said Monday.

"France was, and still is, hostile to the war," he said, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Though he criticized the U.S. over Iraq, Sarkozy showed his commitment to the security effort in Afghanistan by pledging more troops to train the Afghan army _ following months of speculation about France's commitment to that international force.

Closer to home, Sarkozy reiterated his proposal for a "Mediterranean Union" to bridge the divide between Europe and North Africa. Te idea echoes a concept dear to Chirac, who called for a "dialogue of cultures" to counteract the forces of extremism.

Francois Heisbourg, a leading expert on French strategic and foreign policy, said that even when Sarkozy was sending a message of continuity, his style differed dramatically from Chirac's oratory flourishes.

Sarkozy is "clear talk _ no punches pulled, no dancing around words. This was very deliberate," Heisbourg said.

"It's a message to the Iranians, but it's also a message to the Russians and the Chinese _ that is, that if you want us to have a serious chance to try to avoid getting ... into this awful alternative, you'd better be serious in the Security Council."
*******************

Wait, you mean some President, somewhere in the world would like to use diplomacy to get things done? Who'da thunk it? :tinfoil: Seriously - I'm Stuck In America with a C-Student for a President so this concept of civilized discussion where people can reach agreement where win/win situations about leaves me kind of dumbstruck. :rofl:

Oh well, some President Somewhere Must Do Something To Check the Stupidity. Don't get me wrong, France has always and will continue to operate in their own self-interests. As any country should do. But in their case - their interests sound eerily similiar to mine. :wink:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
14. You are certainly not the only one
It seems quite clear that bush/cheney is not likely making idle threats, a bluff. The Iranians will never capitulate based on a bluff. Nor will they capitulate based on a real threat. They play for the long haul and they play with a vengeance and hatred for the west including Europe. Should we launch a devastating air bombardment the thinking is that they will mine the Straights and threaten to attack oil tankers in the Gulf. The other threat is to Israel. They can strike Israel with medium range ballistic missiles. IMO they may do neither, certainly not bomb Israel.

My guess is that Iran will retaliate by attacking the oil infrastructure of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and perhaps other Gulf oil exporting countries. Oil production facilities are extremely vulnerable to attacks by ballistic and cruise missiles. Lots of the equipment used is one of a kind, not off the shelf stuff. Replacing bombed facilities could take a year or more. In the meantime the worlds supply of oil would be reduced by perhaps 1/3 or more. This would be a calamity of monumental proportions. Economies would implode.

My guess is that the world would retaliate not against Iran (who after all is a large supplier of oil to China and others) but against the US and Israel. This retaliation would be economic. China, Japan and other holders of US debt would dump that dept causing a collapse of the dollar. The US would go into severe depression with hyperinflation and deflation both occurring. The US would be unable to import the 60% of oil we now buy from abroad. This would free up about 12 million barrels a day of oil that the rest of the world would be glad to have. Support for the US would be non existent.

The rising price of oil would bring higher incomes to Iran and Russia. While Iran might be set back because of the bombings they will quickly recover using oil money. Iran will not be nuked by either the US or Israel. The world will not allow that to happen and Iran will not provoke such an attack by bombing Israel. Iran knows the the economic destruction of the US economy is also a death blow to the economy of Israel because all economic and military aid to Israel will cease. Israel will quickly become a failed state with a third world economy. Mass immigration of Israeli Jews out of Israel will eventually bring the Palestinians back to power in their newly reclaimed country. All may turn out well....for a time. Then of course Peak Oil will eventually change humanity forever. Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. excellent post!
damn Bob, that is a very different turn of events than I imagined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC