Coming Soon: The Empire Strikes Out

Since before the invasion of Iraq, many of us here deplored the policy as misguided and counterproductive, and we went out and made our voices heard as much as possible. Since Syria's secular government has been the target of underhanded Bushevik smears, many have protested.

Now that we are witnessing the Bush Administration's propaganda windup to violent confrontation with Iran, we need to voice the consequences loud and clear for Americans to comprehend in time to avoid a rout. There are many more doubters now, who will remember prior warnings that were ignored about this President's foreign policy, and realize that his batting-average stinks.

Iran's mullahs have and will continue to thrive on conflict with the USA. They are well-positioned politically and geographically to rapidly cause great harm to the US economy if the US escalates.

Here in the wind-up, Americans had better think carefully about the consequences of striking out. A nuclear-armed Iran is a much more distant threat (experts are saying say 5-10 years) than other responses American aggression can set in motion.

Strike One (already swishing by): Iran is positioned to accelerate the unraveling of the newest US Protectorate next door in Iraq.

Strike Two: Iran incites rage along all shores of the Shi'a-majority Gulf region.

Strike Three: Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz.

And we're out: We can then throw the bat, throw a fit, but we will nevertheless find ourselves immediately in the economic dugout.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that wouldnt last very long, i guarantee you.
the entire iranian navy would be annihilated within days for a stunt like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Days wouldn't be necessary to panic Wall St. Neither would a navy, nor any regular military personnel be necessary in order to render that narrow lane risky enough that supertanker traffic could be interrupted for a short period.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't need a navy to do damage to a tanker.

 

Further, an American war over access to the Persian Gulf would be locally unpopular to say the least: Emerging non-American customers for mideast oil would be the ultimate beneficiaries.

 

Bush would not even have the support of his own party this time around, for they wish to get elected in the upcoming vote. Even worse, 2008 is a dangerous year for the Republicans, since it will be an uphill battle for them to win the presidency. Anything more than economic sanctions would be impossible dream of good old "Bubba".

 

You attack Iran, you go broke trying to occupy it.
You don't, you go broke when Iran sets up its oil bourse.

 

iraq fell in what? 14 days? 21 days?

iran will take much longer than that. iran is mountainous country, and unlike afghanistan, there isn't a large anti-government coalition to lead the attack (like the Northern Alliance). it will be the US military that will have to do the ugly mountain to mountain and valley to valley fighting. ambushes, avalanches, hidden explosive devices in crevices, guerilla attacks, etc... it won't be pretty. technology will only go so far in a primarily mountainous region.

and yes, i highly agree. if the strait of hormuz is shut down for only a few days, the damage would be monstrous.

and couple THAT with america not supporting an attack on iran. woo...this could get REALLY ugly. i wonder what would happen if iran suddenly initiated a nuclear test, and declared that it had nukes? i wonder if the US/israel would back down and suck up the persians?

 

It is obvious to all that North Korea has nuclear weapons, yet I do not see the U.S. sucking up to them, so I highly doubt that they would befriend Iran.

 

Then Iranian troops drive into the eastern provinces of Iraq to re-liberate their Sh'ia brothers. Mixing with the indigenous population makes it impossible to dislodge them without killing everyone. The Syrians take ground in the west to "secure their borders". All of a sudden the Americans are getting squeezed in the middle, and we get treated to the images of garrisons being overrun and the last choppers trying to get out of Baghdad. Blackhawk down times a thousand. Fifty American hostages in Teheran? How about fifty thousand?

 

^^^

lolololol

you guys love to make predictions before war

remembers all the tens of thousands of dead americans it would take to conquer iraq?

its a shame it never turns out like you hope, no, wait, its not a shame at all

 

Keep laughing, DubStyle. The only other option is weeping.

Yes, I thought it was going to take tens of thousands of dead Americans to conquer Iraq - because I thought there were WMDs there and that Saddam was gonna use 'em. Now where could I have gotten that idea from? As for "conquering", Iraq hardly looks like a conquered land to me.

These predictions are almost certainly full of shit. The reality will probably be weirder and far more horrible that any of us can predict. As for hoping... don't be stupid. Nobody wants to see Americans thrust into yet a third war in south Asia - with the apparent exception of the Bush administration. Are you happy about this?

 

America has to take a break from overseas wars and focus on internal problems. Like getting rid of homosexuals, minorities, poor people, and anyone who disagrees with the president's lack of presidency.

 

How adroitly christian of you. They never fail in their god-given task of masked hypocrisy

 

Wow, stop with the "downfall of America" threads already. You obviously have no clue as to how resiliant we are, both the American people and the economy. Bush will not destroy the U.S., and the difference between America and other countries is that Bush only has a finite time left in office. In 2008, the "non-Bush type" candidate will win.

 

to the bush administration, NOT attacking them would be considered "sucking up"
1. bush makes a speech naming several "Evil" nations.
2. bush attacks the first nation he mentions on that list first.
3. after that nation is "defeated", bush moves on to his next target (in between this time, he uses distraction tactics on the american people: 'gays are getting married', 'we are going to the moon again', and 'putting men on mars'.).
4. bush uses the same arguments against said nation as with the first, and proceeds propoganda campaign (as has been noticed as well by other sciforums members) against said nation.
4a. as a result of september 11th, 2001's tragedies, bush felt an obligation to become the "grand savior president", much like abraham lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt (VERY applicable example of this because of FDR's familial connection to another extremely important previous president--->Theodore Roosevelt.).
4b. as such, he made alot of very bold statements regarding the previously considered extreme foreign policy of american religious right conservatives, and his governments role in the implementation of those ideas.
4b1. these changes in american policy have come as a result of what i call "paying the devil his due". bush is not a christian. he is a christian spokesmodel for the christian right in america. they stick their hands up bush's ass and force his hand on every issue he made promises on, in the days after 9/11.



in conclusion, yes i believe we will attack iran in 2006. if the iranians shut down the hormuz, they will only encourage bush to show how humanitarian (?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?)he is, and become the "liberator of all of the middle east".
guaranteed.


RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

 

^^^Great movie script.

 

yeah, they started writing it in 1997.
works like a charm though, doesnt it?

 

There are a couple main points you left out...

1) Iraq had not only fought a military war and invaded kuwait, but were still aggressively attacking U.S. planes patrolling the no fly zone. These events even had Bill Clinton considering military action. No such situation exists with Iran.

2) During the march to the Iraq war, Bush had support of both his party and the American people for the invasion. He has neither this time around. This makes it literally impossible for him to create a scenario for an invasion. Not talking about how it would be financially impossible and require a draft, another unrealistic expectation.

3) You make a suggestion that Bush's rhetoric is similar to before the Iraqi invasion. This is actually an incorrect comparison. A correct comparison would be to North Korea. They are also considered a nation labeled "the axis of evil". Economic sancitons were threatened if retraints on nuclear proliferation was not followed, similar to Iran. Just like North Korea, Iran will buy time until they also possess a nuclear weapon.

The only possiblity I see of an actual attack would be if another terrorist attack occured on American soil. This is what blinded the United States into following Bush's invasion of Iraq. Even in this scenario, I could only see an attack on nuclear sites, not a full blown invasion. Again, the United States neither has the financial or man power to invade Iran.

 

*some* other countries. You were not the first democracy, you are not the best model of democracy, and you are not the only democracy.