Hints of horrors to come

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:27

Thanks my friend for pointing out the IT article on p.9. Looking forward to your comments

by Ali H. Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:42

"If Israel retaliates by blasting every target of value in Lebanon, every TV tower and shopping mall and freeway...well, that's the beauty of the plan: the Shia are the poorest of the poor. They don't own any of that shit anyway. They sit back and laugh watching their neighbors' stuff that they've envied all their lives get blown away -- and it's the Israelis who get the blame."

"Any guerrilla war has lulls, slowdowns, little coffee breaks that last a week, a month, sometimes years. It doesn't mean the war's over. The VC used to go home when it was time to harvest the rice crop; every time they did, the Saigon PR office would declare that the insurgency was beaten. "

"the long-term value of the recent Israeli action against Hizballah is very much in question. (COMMENT: The tactical and strategic threat to Israel's security demonstrated by Hizballah's use of Iranian-supplied missiles is being underrated. The fact that after a full month of furious Israeli bombardment and infantry assault Hizballah was capable of launching 250 rockets into northern Israel in the last hours before the ceasefire proves that defense of Israel based on narrow buffer zones, multi-national peacekeepers and separation walls is an illiusion. We must remember that it was only the absence of a reliable guidance system that prevented massive killing of Israeli civilians by thousands of Katyusha rockets --- a technological gap that can and will be filled in a very short time, no doubt. This frightening reality, when it sinks in, will redouble the already heavy public pressure on the Bush Administration, strongly supported and encouraged by Israel and the pro-Israel lobby, to “do something decisive about Iran”.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/bushs_ro...#more

"The Shia, who cluster in the slums of S and E Beirut and in the rural south of Lebanon, have the highest birthrate in Lebanon and have always been the poorest, most death-hungry people around. That's the stuff you make great soldiers from.

And Hezbollah has great soldiers. That's one reason I can't help liking them. They're some of the most underrated soldiers on earth facing what I consider the most overrated military force on earth, the IDF. The Israelis have been coasting on their reputation for a long time, but way back in Gulf War I it was clear they made their record like a Don King fighter, padding their Win column against a bunch of bums. When I saw those pitiful Arab "soldiers" crawling toward US camera crews on their hands and knees to surrender, the first thing that went through my head was, "Whoa, so that's the kind of opponent the Israelis have been showboating against? Well Hell, my high school marching band could've beaten those Arab chickenshits!""

"As long as the IDF was beating up on Hamas down in Gaza, it could hide its weakness most of the time. Not all of the time -- pretty sloppy, letting Hamas commandos tunnel right into that base, blast a tank and kidnap poor baby Shalit right while he was thinking up his next capsule review. Still, except for the occasional slip, the IDF was safe in its F-16s and Merkavas, facing Pals with nothing but rifles and old RPGs. It's easy to look tough rolling through refugee camps in the world's most heavily armored tank."

http://www.exile.ru/2006-July-28/a_hezbollah_upon_all_o....html

"We believe in winning. Remember the beginning of Patton, when George C. Scott stands up in dress uniform and says, "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country -- he won it by making some other poor son-of-a-bitch die for HIS country"? That sounds pretty obvious to us, but it's not the only way you can think about war.

If the Shi'ites wrote the script for Patton, George C. Scott would get up and say something like, "Go ahead and kill us -- you'll be sorry!" We're talking about a martyr culture here, where dying makes you stronger. You know, that shouldn't be so hard for us to get, because we've got Christ, who won by losing, by dying. But that was a long time ago, and it's so prettified by now that Mel Gibson had to make a whole movie to remind people that martyrdom actually hurts.
"

http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-04/war_nerd.html

"Despite vehement official assertions to the contrary, indications are increasing every day that the Bush Administration has already decided that conventional diplomacy will fail as a way to manage its confrontation with Iran, and that military action against the Teheran regime has therefore already reached the point of final countdown."

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/bushs_ro...#more

"Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the fuse."

http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

by Ali H. Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:49

Of course all the NeoCon crazies are peddling the old story that "once we invade, the people will rally to the cause of freedom."

Yeah. Just like they did in Iraq. If we couldn't get people on our side after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of winning hearts and minds in Iran?

The kids in Iran are pissed off at the way the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane.

"It's like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet invasion of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances."

by redjade Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:52

Why is Bush, the media in general, the anti-war movement, the UN, and the rest of the planet

completely ignoring that Iran is attacking Iraq right now?
and Turkey too!

Turkey Prepares to Invade Iraq
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77348

there's a wink and nod going on somewhere, but why?

by pkk Tue Aug 22, 2006 18:23

because the kurds have the capability if they (PKK) (PWK) of creating problems for Iran and Turkey
Methinks a deal was reached to stop/cut down the flow of fighters and arms from Iran and Turkey into Iraq in exchange for a look the other way by the US

by Coilín Wed Aug 23, 2006 01:02

Thanks, Michael, for posting this report on the looming threat of an invasion of Iran by the United States. I was fairly appalled by the article about it in the Irish Times.

Having created chaos in Iraq, the US now wants to destroy Iran, too?

An invasion of Iran would be catastrophic, not just for the people of Iran, but for the United States itself. I have several reasons for thinking this:

1. Iran is a much more powerful country than Iraq. Before the invasion of 2003, Iraq was already very weak, having been besieged for more than 12 years under a murderous trade embargo. In contrast, Iran has a thriving economy, a well-nourished population of about 70 million and a powerful military.

I winced in dismay when I read Ned Walker's suggestion that thousands of American troops may be withdrawn from Iraq and sent to meet death or permanent disability in Iran instead. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

2. Iran exports great quantities of oil onto the world market. In the event of an attack, the flow of oil would be disrupted and prices would climb abruptly. Many American businesses would go bankrupt and ordinary Americans would suffer financial hardship. Come winter, thousands might die of the cold - unless Hugo Chávez supplies them with cheap heating oil?

By the way, Irish householders would also face rising prices for heating oil, and Irish motorists would face rising petrol prices if this attack took place. In fact, prices will rise at the mere threat of imminent attack. So we have a financial incentive to protest.

3. If American troops invading Iran encounter the same kind of difficulties that the Israeli forces encountered in southern Lebanon in recent weeks, then they won't get very far.

I think that these comments from Bush and Walker may be a way of trying to find out what the world thinks of the idea of withdrawing from Iraq and invading Iran instead. So let's tell them what we think: It's a dumb idea!

I think we should start protesting NOW and go on protesting through the day of international protest on 23 September, and on until the US stops threatening to attack Iran.

Some have accused the international anti-war movement of being anti-American, but, on the contrary, the best way we can show our friendship for the United States is to send a very clear message:
GO HOME. STAY HOME.
DON'T GO ANYWHERE NEAR IRAN.

Apart from contacting journalists, writing to the papers, phoning radio stations, etc., protests in writing can be made to the ambassador:
Ambassador James C. Kenny
U.S. Embassy
42 Elgin Road
Ballsbridge
Dublin 4
Telephone: +353 1 668-8777
Fax: +353 1 668-9946

Best,
Coilín.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:34

I agree with you Coilin.

The US, hoewevr, will find it very hard to convince Russia, China and to a certain extent the EU countries to support hard line sanctions and possibly an attack on Iran. Just read an interesting piece by Ali Akbar Dareini of the Associated Press on the ongoing shananigans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran...clear

Let us continue this debate, open it up to other contributions, and keep vigilant. Remember old Mao's dictum that badly wounded tigers (and I would include both Israel and the US in this) are very dangerous and barbaric animals.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:14

Which is worse?
(1) Iran gets a nuke and threatens the world or uses the thing on a European or American city killing millions of people and kills hundreds of millions of people in the ensuing World War.
(2) NATO invades Iran, takes out the mullahs, takes out the nuke program, destroys the Iranian army, fights an Iranian insurgency and looses a few thousand troops and a few thousand people worldwide are killed by terrorist attacks in retaliation.

I would choose option 2.

I hope Iran caves in to the UN when it remembers what happened to Iraq and Lebanon.

by iranian whispers Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:14

they have been saying that they are invading Iran since 1979 and the gullible always swallow first and are still swallowing today

they have no intention of invading Iran, never had

They will get the UN to do any dirty work on Iran as they have always done, after all it is then a global decision, they will have troops in Iraq for a while yet

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:01

If Iran seeks to continue to build a nuke and threatens Israel, the Middle East and the world with terrorism well then there will be no alternative.

by Self-righteous mentalist Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:07

"Iran gets a nuke and threatens the world or uses the thing on a European or American city killing millions of people and kills hundreds of millions of people in the ensuing World War."

Every now and again you pop up on Indymedia and say something completely deranged like that. But you keep posting, so you obviously think that there's a chance that someone might take you seriously. So could you explain, please, how Iran might kill 'hundreds of millions of people'? Please, I'm all ears. Give us a good, detailed explanation of how that's going to happen.

There's a good chap.

by Coilín Wed Aug 23, 2006 21:50

Let me underline the _pragmatic_ aspect of this:

Even if the United States could persuade all of its NATO allies to participate in an invasion of Iran with half a million troops, they would probably face outright defeat within six weeks.

It's a bit worrying that some people have not yet realised that the United States is suffering an agonising military defeat in Iraq - a country that had already been greatly weakened by the trade embargo before the invasion of March 2003.

But it seems that the American administration will accept nothing less than total defeat. This is sad to see.

Best,
Coilín.

by no idea Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:11

Even if the United States could persuade all of its NATO allies to participate in an invasion of Iran with half a million troops, they would probably face outright defeat within six weeks.

LOL, have you ever been to Iran>? nah didnt think so, whats that, you have no idea what you are talking about, ohh indeed

irans army is dilapadated and unskilled and like Iraq its mostly a conscription army of ragtags, at its core is about 350,000 regular troops 2/3 of which are conscripts--it has virtually fuck all airpower, of course it has the weaponry sold to it by Israel and US and Britain in the late 80s, a few tanks and hawk missles

in other words it would be a onesided slaughter
casualties roughly about 3000/1

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:58

If Iran, with its 70+ million inhabitants, its rich cultural past and present, its highly educated people, its active political organisations, many of them opposed to the regime....and its highly motivated and ideologically coherent barbaric theocracy at the top....if Iran is such a weak opponent....if all the above is true, then WHERE IS THE THREAT? Why all the talk about attacking it, destroying it, annihilating it (3,000/1 casualties the troll says)? That equation, based on what happened in Iraq over the last three years, would equate to about 3,000 US working class men and women and 9 million Iranians slaughtered. What a glorious perspective our expert above has!

The United Nations experts and those who know say that Iran has no nuclear weapons, it isn't obvious or proven they're developing weapons, and the CIA tells the world that even if they were, it would take them at least 10 years. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, many of the others aren't, and however much we in the anti-war movement dislike and are opposed to the development of civil, let alone military, nuclear power, Iran is entitled to do it. As much as France, Finland, the UK or Russia and China are. At the same time, in the region, Israel, Pakistan and India are brimful with missiles and nukes. So where is the Empire's rationale for this unbearable warmongering?

Or is it, perhaps, Con Rice's "new Middle East" plan we are talking about here?

by righteous pragmatist Thu Aug 24, 2006 13:25

The US and the capitalist and militarily powerful west are liked the hare - he is so confident of his position that he lies down and goes to sleep.
The tortoise plods along slowly and deliberately just like Iran.
At the last minute the hare sits up awake and watches in horror as the tortoise shuffles over the line.
It is too late to catch up even though he is faster and could have easily defeated the tortoise long before.
Iran simply has to slowly and patiently pursue its quest for nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism all the time grinding away at us until we are suddenly suprised.

Iran has a primitive conscript army with obsolete weapons but if they acquire a usable nuke give and give to Islamic terrorists to use in a major world capitol either Paris, Rome, London, New York, New Dehli or Toyko - all the modern sleath fighters, satelite tracking systems, super modern weapons etc. in the world will be no use if they are used too late

by see the wood Thu Aug 24, 2006 13:29

It's a bit worrying that some people have not yet realised that the United States is suffering an agonising military defeat in Iraq - a country that had already been greatly weakened by the trade embargo before the invasion of March 2003.

Excuse me but last i heard Saddam was in the docks charged with genocide? As he has been totally overthrown i would say that the US has actually been successfull. democracy on the other hand takes years--just look at Ireland for an example, civil war etc, dont worry, the plan is going very very well so far, the seed has been planted and Sharia is now so far from Iraq it aint funny. you see the objective is allready almost done!!

by Woodcutter Thu Aug 24, 2006 13:35

"Sharia is now so far from Iraq it aint funny. you see the objective is allready almost done!!"

Are you completely insane, or just ignorant? The fundamentalist parties are by far the most powerful force in Iraq, and religious militias have been imposing sharia wherever they can. That's quite apart from the bloody chaos and the threat of civil war. You should be forced to live in a typical Baghdad neighbourhood for the next 6 months, then maybe you'd wonder whether things are 'already almost done'.

by andy the bbc hater Sun Sep 10, 2006 16:59

I'm really concerned about the nature of the debate on terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Middle East etc.

I'm not rigidly aligned in terms of party politics but do vote Labour by the way.

I don't like the foreign policy issues being discussed so much in terms of "should we be doing this when there might be some blowback from terrorists".

Either the policy is right or wrong and we shouldn't, for example, reverse it because we're afraid of the consequences. I'm disappointed in the progressive lack of moral courage (as I see it) in the British population and, especially, the media.

Also there's an emerging discussion about whether we should attempt to negotiate with Al Qaeda. I think that everything should be tried that might prevent further suffering here and abroad but simply cannot imagine what Al Qaeda might want that we would be prepared to give them. The specious argument that we negotiated with the IRA doesn't stack up for me as they had an objective that, with some diplomacy, is ultimately doable.

As J.S. Mill said "war is an ugly thing bit uglier still is the decayed state of morality that thinks nothing worth a war".

I am implacably opposed to terrorism for whatever cause.

Finally, there is a lot of talk, rightly, about young Muslims being radicalised. There is no discussion about ordinary British non-muslims who are, in my experience, becoming radicalised against Islam. I see people I know who are generally pretty balanced adopting increasingly and scarily robust views against Islam. This is a simmering and potentially explosive social trend.