Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Or move to Canada now and beat the rush.
This fuckhead is hell-bent on...well, hell. Or at least armageddon.
I'm going to Disney World one more time.
See ya!
Look, attacking Iran would be stupid and unwarranted, but when articles like this are written it just makes it appear that the left has no clue.
Iran would not be able to acheive territorial advances against US forces that it was unable to acheive against Iraq during the Iraq/Iranian war. They wouldn't even try, they'd simply rely on Shias in Iraq to disrupt supplies.
I usually like your writing but don't try to go with military strategy anymore. If iran came back across OPEN ground with ANY number of troops our air superiority would set up another turkey shoot. Our ground troops wouldn't even be likely to be involved. Yes, they may succeed in cutting a supply line but it wouldn't be for long as hundreds of thousands of pounds of munitions and tank busters etc. (that were developed exactly for that sort of attack) would chew them up.
What's the greater danger? That it would more deeply ingrain any insurgency and encourage sunni's to further acts of terror and possible civil war.
Our military can take out any military in open terms. That is exactly what it was developed for over 50 years. What we cannot do is post war activities.
We are getting our asses kicked in two countries at once with the best-equipped military on the planet.
Yeah, Iran will be a piece of cake, if we can get them to line up and wait until we reload.
You retarded chicken hawks need to be in the front of the line. Do you think the Iranians will bury us in well-manicured fields of crosses like the French did?
Thank you for fucking up a perfectly good world. See you in hell.
It's good to read these letters, which offer second/third/etc. opinions on this complex topic. I'd like to read yet more takes on the consequences of a U.S. attack/invasion of Iran. Would the editors fish around for that?
That aside, let me posit a thought that flashed though my admittedly geopolitically challenged mind. When I put the news reports together, it leads me to ponder the possibility of...wait for it...a coup. Yes, you heard it here, folks; a genuine U.S. born and bred coup d'etat. Has anyone considered this? I theorize that at this time (2006/04/21) there is simply high-level scuttlebutt, nothing more--though serious enough, if true.
I know that's a wierd notion; and the U.S. military is nothing if not thoroughly conditioned to act at the behest of the whims of the civil system. But there's a part of me that feels that there must be a breaking point; it's just a question of where that breaking point is, and whether we're streaking toward that horizon with no sign of some governing safeguard intervening to save the day (e.g., a check/balance).
At any rate, even if Conason's military analysis is off--as suggested in some of these letters--there's still a "canary in the coalmine" value to his concern; something I'm sure many of us share at this point.
I'm not sure there would be a military coup over a plan to attack Iran, but I do wonder what the generals and lower ranking officers in the Pentagon really think about this notion. Could we see mass resignations by military people who don't want anything to do with a reckless plan like this, especially after the last debacle?
With Bush's numbers down so far and with so many more people knowing about all of his lies going into the last war they will have a much harder time selling another one this time around. Congress rolled over and played dead before but I think there would be much more opposition, especially given the flimsy "evidence" put forth so far. And I think we will see a much more aggressive and skeptical press corps this time as well.
I'm not so sure that Iran is really anywhere near having nukes. I think it serves them for everyone to think they do as it gives them more leverage. And I suppose Bush wants everyone to think they are farther along than they really are so he can try and sell another war. The press certainly jumped all over the Iranian presentation last week and didn't seem to ask many skeptical questions about what the reality is.
When I read this article, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry at the total lack of substance in the piece. The complete lack of understanding about use of military forces is a joke (campaigns are based on logistics - not driving your army across the border), total lack of understanding of the people (the Iraqis are Arab, not Persian - and while they may be Shiite, they certainly do not follow the same leaders) and the situation (much huffing and puffing on both sides - sometimes called bargaining in the middle east). What other motivation for having dancers prance around on TV with "enriched Uranium" vials? - I hope that they have a good long term medical plan after that stunt.
Other than just a very poor attempt to bash Bush - I see little grounding in reality for this scenario. All this started when Seymour Hearsh revealed that the Pentagon was studying taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Would that be so surprising if they had been studying doing the same to the Chinese? But then, the EU is on the case negotiating for us - so why worry? Look at the great job they did in Bosnia before that illegal war.
What I do see though is a failure on Mr Conason's part to see that the opposite is indeed happening - the Iranians are in a proxy war with the US in Iraq through the militias (Mr. Sadr's comes to mind). You can rightly complain that the US should have never allowed the militias to be formed in the first place in Iraq, but don't act like the Iranian side is completely innocent in this game.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
