SUPPLIES FOR OUR FORCES MUST FIRST REACH MAIN PORT IN KUWAIT BY SHIPS

[seemslikeadream]

That's what this Iran thing is all about. No?


ships that must transit the Strait of Hormuz past a gantlet of Iranian Silkworm anti-ship missiles and suicide torpedo boats.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/140663

In an article for The Christian Science Monitor, Lang asked what we could do if that supply route were cut. Only about 5 percent of the supplies for our troops in Iraq come in by air. With a huge effort, that could be doubled or perhaps even tripled, but an airlift couldn't provide nearly enough food, ammunition and fuel to keep our troops on the job, even if the Sunni insurgents around Baghdad and Balad didn't start trying to shoot down the supply flights or drop mortar rounds on the runways.

Would our military have to stop trying to end the sectarian violence in Iraq in order to keep its own supply lines open?
There's another strategic vulnerability farther up the chain: Supplies for our forces must first reach the main port in Kuwait by ships — ships that must transit the Strait of Hormuz past a gantlet of Iranian Silkworm anti-ship missiles and suicide torpedo boats.
Little wonder, then, that Iran and its ayatollahs have the nerve to thumb their noses at efforts to curtail their nuclear ambitions and to supply thousands of short- and medium-range missiles to their Hezbollah proteges in Lebanon.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=9370§ionid=351020206
Kuwait preparing for US attack on Iran

[whistle]

1. It certainly appears to be a quagmire

[stillcool]

2. and if something were to happen...

to that supply line...would anybody tell us? I would imagine a great deal of those supplies are brought in by contracted workers. It makes me wonder, how anyone, can say they know what the fuck is going on in that country.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Thanks stillcool47

for that suppy line thought
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x972638

[peacetalksforall]

4. So, the oil goes out and the supplies go in - it's a perfect situation for

talking peace. But, no, we're a macho nation - we send big ships and 17000 sailors and stick out our chest and our missile launchers. And we have AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, and Cheney ready to bomb Iran flat.

The Straits of Hormuz. Who would have thought it.

I vote for peace and pull-out and paying for oil like good people, not stealing it for profit by a few.

[peacetalksforall]

6. Do you know that there are still people who say we didn't invade

Iraq for oil?

[stillcool]

5. you know...

that memo that rodeodance posted just made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, when I read it. The low-key language, and vagueness, strikes me as worrisome. What do you think?

[seemslikeadream]

7. The memo

if the disruption was not soon corrected.

It would be really nice if there some journalists around reporting on this


http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/topic/39
> US Mission Alert: Food, Convoy Problems-MAY 23, 2007
> Workers Warned Some Food Types to be "Severely Limited or
> Unavailable"; MREs?
>>
> All those working with "US Mission Iraq" -- embassy, consulate, and
> provincial reconstruction team employees and military personnel and
> contractors at State Dept.-funded facilities in Iraq -- are being
> warned of food supply disruptions, with some food types soon to be "severely limited or unavailable."
>
> The memo gave no explanation as to why the food convoys have been
> delayed, but warned that their dining facilities (DFACS) would not be
> stocked as usual and that MREs might have to serve as a replacement
> for their regular food if the disruption was not soon corrected.
>
> Though this memo only seems to apply those eating at cafeterias at US
> State Department facilities across Iraq, including US military
> personnel who eat at those cafeterias, news that food deliveries in
> Iraq are experiencing supply-side disruption theater-wide raises
> questions about whether US troops may be dealing with the similar
> supply challenges.

[Igel]

9. But you hint at a larger problem.

Supplies may need to get in through the Straits, but in the event of a supply shortage forcing a retreat, troops would have to get out.

If, because of Iran's actions, 50k American troops get killed in Iraq during a forced retreat, you can count on public opinion being sufficiently chaotic to permit a serious bombardment of anything in Iran that moves.

So if Israel does drop a bomb, and Neejad continues his paranoid Zionist rantings and assumes that under every American (even, probably Sharpton and Jackson) there lurks a Zionist Jew, it wouldn't be pleasant. They profess to understand plausible deniability when it's Iranian-supplied bombs, smuggled through Syria, landing in N. Israel ... perfect innocents, Neejad probably even claims virginity when accused of being complicit with Nasrullah. But he'd be very quick at casting blame when his nuts are in the vise ... gotta love honor-based cultures.

[lonestarnot]

13. Where's honor in all that nut crushing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Or they have an overland section in the UAE

Not too far away, the port of the Fujairah in the UAE acquires special importance in the execution of American contingency plans. The facilities at this port will come into play in case Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz. In such an eventuality, Fujairah, which straddles the Gulf of Oman and is closer to the Arabian Sea, will be used to offload U.S. supplies. The cargo would then be dispatched by road to the other Gulf countries across a well-developed communication network. Alternatively, goods could be sent overland to the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai on the opposite end, for further redistribution.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/20/stories/2006052004091000.htm

Awkward, but it is further from Iran - and probably just outside Silkworm range, according to this blog (range of 95km claimed on Wikipedia. That's if the UAE are happy being that closely associated with an attack on Iran, of course.

[bridgit]

10. kick...

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

11. K&R n/t

[seemslikeadream]

12. Democracy in Iraq, Tyranny at Home?

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05262007.html

The problem with the Democrats' cynical logic is that allowing Bush to prolong the war in Iraq increases the chances that Cheney, Israel, and the neoconservatives can contrive a war with Iran. Most experts, and many in our own military, think that a war
with Iran would go very badly for us, endangering our troops in Iraq by exposing them to more intense attacks from the more numerous Shiites, who would be armed with Iranian weapons that can neutralize our tanks and helicopters, leaving our fragmented and divided troops isolated and cut off from supplies and retreat routes.