US Air Force General reveals details of possible US aerial offensive against Iran should diplomacy fail to solve dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambition; says 'doing it alone' is not an option for Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3314171,00.html


This is good news...I previously thought it wouldn't be possible under any circumstances...

I hope Rumsfeld won't be involved in any of the planning and execution however.

Give me a break, for Bush diplomacy is irrelevent. I think he will try to whack Iran.

Possible....but wise?

Possible....but wise?

would you agree that these are all important US interests in the middle east...


1. friendly oil producers, ability to make sure that oil is not used as weapon
2. preventing the saudis, turks and everyone else from wanting nukes
3. preventing iran from essentially overruning/controlling Iraq
4. remaining the preeminent military power in the region

If so then it is very wise.

Good news? Just as stupid as Iraq. Never believe Air Force generals when they say they can win the war.

would you agree that these are all important US interests in the middle east...


1. friendly oil producers, ability to make sure that oil is not used as weapon
2. preventing the saudis, turks and everyone else from wanting nukes
3. preventing iran from essentially overruning/controlling Iraq
4. remaining the preeminent military power in the region

If so then it is very wise.

Can you honestly tell me that you know what would happen? Iraq turned out MUCH different then what was expected by the Administraton.

Can you honestly tell me that you know what would happen? Iraq turned out MUCH different then what was expected by the Administraton.

That is true - the war in Iraq has not finished - It is still a very troubled country

The efforts of the allies have just rattled a hornets nest.

would you agree that these are all important US interests in the middle east...


1. friendly oil producers, ability to make sure that oil is not used as weapon
2. preventing the saudis, turks and everyone else from wanting nukes
3. preventing iran from essentially overruning/controlling Iraq
4. remaining the preeminent military power in the region

If so then it is very wise.

The only way to ensure that oil is not used as a weapon (I assume you are an American, here) is to stop depending on it as the lifeblood of the economy. Until then, you stay vulnerable.

Preventing countries from wanting nuclear weapons? By demonstrating that the U.S. will not attack a country that has them (see North Korea, Pakistan etc.) but will antagonize those who don't have them with impunity?

Preventing Iran from overrunning/controlling Iraq? They started doing that the second the U.S. overthrew Hussein. Attacking Iran directly would only accelerate that process.

Preeminent military power in the region? Depends on who you field to oppose that power. A set-piece battle, tank for tank and jet for jet? Then yes. Against hundreds of thousands of young men with an AK, an IED and nothing to lose? Then no.

Attacking Iran will not improve any of these interests. But it will have a curious effect in terms of creating a more advantageous playing field -

It will further plunge us into the chaos of a regional war. How can chaos possibly be good for U.S. interests? The last twenty years has seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the full-on emergence of a vital EU, and the rapid rise of India and China as economic competitors. The U.S. can no longer dominate under the rules of the game, so the rules have got to be changed. The U.S. can dominate in an environment of chaos - think of 1945 - and so seeks to create that chaos. Not by making the U.S. stronger, but by weakening everybody else.

Give me a break, for Bush diplomacy is irrelevent. I think he will try to whack Iran.If Bushed tried to whack Iran in his last year as President could he extend his term by 2 additional years?

If Bushed tried to whack Iran in his last year as President could he extend his term by 2 additional years?

The only way Bush could extend his term is if he suspended the 2008 election.

Hi te-jen

thank you for your post and i hoep you had a good weekend

how exactly could he do this?

##########
take care
zak

how exactly could he do this?

If something really bad happened, like a nuclear weapon going off somewhere inside the U.S., or maybe a massive pandemic health emergency, then I could imagine the president declaring a state of emergency and postponing elections. I don't see how he could do this indefinitely, though. Probably six months at the outside.

Even Lincoln at the height of the Civil War didn't dare suspend elections, and he had plenty of reason to do so. In 1864 George McClellan ran against him, and part of his platform was that the war had been a failure and that a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy ought to be concluded. Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election, but never considered postponing the election for the duration of the rebellion.

The 1918 midterm elections occurred right in the middle of the famous influenza pandemic, but there was no suggestion to postpone it.

I suppose that if somebody wanted to directly affect the election, they could organize attacks at polling places. A couple dozen car bombs and sniper attacks would probably do it. It might influence things so strongly as to require a nullification of the election.

Ok thats great thanks te_jen

looks like the bush man would not be able to do it...

thats a relief

###################

take care
zak

Even Lincoln at the height of the Civil War didn't dare suspend elections, and he had plenty of reason to do so. In 1864 George McClellan ran against him, and part of his platform was that the war had been a failure and that a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy ought to be concluded. Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election, but never considered postponing the election for the duration of the rebellion.

Well, but Lincoln probably was quite in favour for democracy. A lot has changed since then.