War With Iran?

[Anonymouse]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

 

Basically this is a very interesting article, and if there are any political science majors or history majors or simply people who are well versed, I recommend you read this article to get a thorough understanding of what is at play here.

 

If this occurs it doesn't bode too well for Armenia as Iran has clearly been a good trading partner and economically viable for Armenia since the collapse of the SU. With this onslaught waiting, this will further destabalize the region.

[Sasun]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

 

Basically this is a very interesting article, and if there are any political science majors or history majors or simply people who are well versed, I recommend you read this article to get a thorough understanding of what is at play here.

 

If this occurs it doesn't bode too well for Armenia as Iran has clearly been a good trading partner and economically viable for Armenia since the collapse of the SU. With this onslaught waiting, this will further destabalize the region.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Iran is not Iraq my friend. I think the pathetic warmongers in the US understand it.

[Stormig]

I don't get it. How do the Amerikanskis wish to afford it?

[Nakharar]

They can and they will.

[Stormig]

Well, currently they also "are" affording the crap in Iraq. If you look at it that way, it sure looks like they "can." But where do you draw the line?

Gawd, should I regret not having visited all the sites before Amerikanskis turn them into rubble?

[Nakharar]

Despite the large number of civilian casualties, in the end we will all be better off. They as well as us. Their death will serve a purpose. Edited December 19, 2004 by Nakharar

[Anonymouse]

Iran is not Iraq my friend. I think the pathetic warmongers in the US understand it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sasun I know to us it seems irrational, but to the hawkish neocons in Washington they do not care. They clearly underestimated the Iraq fiasco, and many top U.S. Generals argued against it. You know why we never hear them? They were all silenced and never get a voice in the media. Many good generals stated this would be a disaster, and it is, and as far as I am concerned, America lose this war in Iraq and Afghanistan long ago.

[Nakharar]

Sasun I know to us it seems irrational, but to the hawkish neocons in Washington they do not care. They clearly underestimated the Iraq fiasco, and many top U.S. Generals argued against it. You know why we never hear them? They were all silenced and never get a voice in the media. Many good generals stated this would be a disaster, and it is, and as far as I am concerned, America lose this war in Iraq and Afghanistan long ago.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

A good thing is that the status quo is changed forever. The region got a real shake-up. Maybe they will start to get their act together instead of bitch and complain about the "crusaders".

[Anonymouse]

A good thing is that the status quo is changed forever. The region got a real shake-up. Maybe they will start to get their act together instead of bitch and complain about the "crusaders".

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

How is that a good thing? The contradictions and ironies in this are glaring. The U.S. complains about "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic jihad", yet it promotes terrorism by constantly destabalizing the region. Iraq was one of the few secular countries in the Middle East and it toppled that and complains of "terrorism". The same applies to Syria which is another secular country facing possible U.S. incursions.

[Arpa]

Iran may be at the top of the wish list, but just as us, little boys who may wish Santa would bring us a shiny new red bicycle but settle for a broken down unicycle, those "big boys" have their wish list as well. Even if Iran may be at the top of the list, look down the list. Immediately below is Syria. Listen to the whispers, not really, listen to the loud noises. How many times a day do you hear Syria mentioned, not always, rather never in a favorable way. What with the "porous" borders with Iraq, WMDs spirited away and hidden in Syria, terrorist groups using Syria as their launching pads...dictatorship...add your own observations.

 

Many cliches may be suitable here. Let us consider a few. "The tail wagging the dog", "puppet theater". Add to that the call of those idiots wishing the"second coming" (of Christ) which will only happen after Armageddon, i.e total destruction of the world as we know it. Speaking of "self fulfilling prophecy"?? With propehcies of the sort who needs curses!!!

 

Sooner or later that whole region will blow up in flames. Call it WW IV, we have already seen WW III, also known as Artsakh, after all it was and is our entire world.

 

The region will conflageate one way or other. Boundaries will be redrawn. Many countries may have already drawn their wishful maps of the region. It would be a sight to see when Turkey and Iran revive their age old rivalries.

 

How about us?

[Sasun]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

 

Basically this is a very interesting article, and if there are any political science majors or history majors or simply people who are well versed, I recommend you read this article to get a thorough understanding of what is at play here.

 

If this occurs it doesn't bode too well for Armenia as Iran has clearly been a good trading partner and economically viable for Armenia since the collapse of the SU. With this onslaught waiting, this will further destabalize the region.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I read the article fully, it is interesting and realistic. But I don't understand why Azerbaijan is listed among countries hosting US bases, and Georgia is not. I thought Azerbaijan only has talks of hosting American bases, and Georgia actually has some small number of American military. Am I missing important information?

[Anonymouse]

I read the article fully, it is interesting and realistic. But I don't understand why Azerbaijan is listed among countries hosting US bases, and Georgia is not. I thought Azerbaijan only has talks of hosting American bases, and Georgia actually has some small number of American military. Am I missing important information?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That I do not know either, but my guess is given the good relationship America and Azerbaijan have had, it wouldn't be far off the mark if they already had bases, or might in the future.

[Dave]

How about us?

 

Us? History tells us that we will once again caught in the middle (and become the victims) of these conflicts between East (Parthia, Persia, Seljuk empire...) and West (Rome, Byzantium, Crusaders...)

 

History also tells us that siding with the (non-turkic) east could have been a wiser idea.

[Nakharar]

Us? History tells us that we will once again caught in the middle (and become the victims) of these conflicts between East (Parthia, Persia, Seljuk empire...) and West (Rome, Byzantium, Crusaders...)

 

History also tells us that siding with the (non-turkic) east could have been a wiser idea.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

We won't if we keep a strictly neutral line. A neutral neutrality, not an active one.

[Armen]

USA may use occupied Azeri territories to attack Iran - Armenian paper

 

Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan

20 Jan 05

 

 

The Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani territories are the most

convenient place for deploying American bases and attacking Iran, the

Armenian newspaper Haykakan Zhamanak has said. This option will be

advantageous to the United States as it will solve several problems,

including the Artsax conflict, it said. The newspaper went on to say

that the sense of US-Azerbaijani diplomatic cooperation in the recent

period is to convince the world that the Azerbaijani territories

controlled by the Armenian forces belong to Azerbaijan and are its

sovereign territories. On this basis, Azerbaijan and the USA will sign

an agreement under which Azerbaijan will allow the USA to deploy its

military bases in the occupied districts. The paper added that the

"Iran problem" may damage Armenia's relations with Iran and Russia and

called on the government to draw up a clear-cut contingency plan. The

following is the text of Arman Karapetyan's report by Armenian

newspaper Haykakan Zhamanak on 20 January headlined "New complications

for Armenia". Subheadings as published:

 

US President George Bush's statement that he does not rule out that

the USA will take military action against Iran complicates Armenia's

geo-political situation. This statement means not only that the USA is

interested in our country from a geo-political or military-political

point of view, but also that our country is of very specific

significance in the context of settling a very specific problem. And

the policy of complementarity established by [Armenian President]

Robert Kocharyan and [Armenian Foreign Minister] Vardan Oskanyan, who

are torn between Russia, the USA and Europe in their unsuccessful

attempts to establish equal relations, may simply collapse as a result

of the Iran problem becoming more intense and affect Armenia.

 

For this reason, from now on, the political forces, authorities and

diplomats of Armenia should develop a strict position and have several

scenarios of possible developments around Iran and models of Armenia's

position if any of these scenarios is put into practice. But before

drawing up these strategic approaches, Armenia has more pressing

problems in the context of Iran-US relations, which are directly

linked to the settlement of the Artsax issue.

 

Bases in the occupied territories

 

Irrespective of whether Bush orders an attack on Iran or not, the USA

will continue strengthening its military presence in areas close to

the Iranian border. This is necessary not only for the successful

conduct of possible military actions, but also in order to launch a

psychological attack on Iran. Iran's borders are almost surrounded by

US troops: Iraq and Turkey are to the west of Iran and there are

enough US troops there. The Persian Gulf in the south is totally

controlled by the US armed forces. Afghanistan is to the east, and

there are enough American troops there.

 

The other eastern neighbour of Iran, Pakistan, is the USA's strategic

partner. And only in the north, does the USA not have a military

presence on the Iranian border. Iran's northern neighbours are

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Thus, it is evident that the

USA's next strategic problem is to ensure its military presence north

of Iran, and there is a natural question against this background:

where may US military bases be located? The Turkmen option should be

ruled out immediately as American-Turkmen relations are not at the

necessary level to discuss such an issue. Turkmenistan's domestic

political situation is another reason for this, and the USA cannot

cooperate with this country first of all on principle.

 

Analysis shows that the so-called "liberated-occupied" territories are

the most convenient place for deploying American military bases north

of Iran. The recent statement made by US Assistant Secretary of State

Elizabeth Jones about the criminal nature of the authorities of the

Nagornyy Artsax republic [NKR] confirms this view once again. This

option will be advantageous to the US authorities as it will settle

several problems, including the Artsax conflict.

 

Is it possible to deploy American military forces in the

"liberated-occupied" territories? The sense of US-Azerbaijani

diplomatic cooperation in the recent period is to convince the world

that the Azerbaijani territories controlled by the Armenian forces

belong to Azerbaijan and are its sovereign territories that have been

illegally taken by Armenians.

 

The factfinding group that will visit these occupied territories by

the end of the month will make "horrible discoveries" about the

situation there and the world community will conclude that it is

necessary to return these territories to Azerbaijan immediately. This

point will have a declarative nature, and the main essence of such

propaganda again will be that the occupied territories belong to

Azerbaijan. Through diplomatic channels, it will be suggested that the

Armenian authorities pull out of the occupied territories. Naturally,

our authorities will not agree to such a "betrayal". During that

period, it will be fixed in all the documents and people's minds that

the occupied territories belong to Azerbaijan and are de-jure

controlled by its authorities. Only on the basis of this note, will

Azerbaijan and the USA sign an agreement under which Azerbaijan will

allow the USA to deploy its military bases in Fuzuli, Zangilan,

Cabrayil, Kalbacar, Agdam, Lacin and Qubadli Districts

[Armenian-occupied districts of Azerbaijan], and this will be de jure

an unquestionable decision again [as published].

 

Let us hope that the Armenian army does not have commanders who will

order their soldiers to fire at the American army, understanding that

it is pointless.

 

Other complications

 

The aforesaid is not the only complication for Armenia in the context

of the further development of events around Iran. As is the case with

Iraq, we shall have the problem of providing the USA with an air

corridor in this case as well. Of course, the problem will not be

limited only to providing an air corridor, and the Americans will try

to rent one of Armenia's military airports. And here the problem will

be seen not only in the context of Armenian-Iranian relations, but

also in the context of Armenian-Russian relations. And on the whole,

if the USA has the problem of changing the political regime in Iran,

what will Armenia's position be like?

 

These are really complicated problems and it will be impossible to

avoid them not only in conditions of rivalry between Armenia and Iran

[as published], but also between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the

context of all these developments, Armenia should be able not only to

demonstrate a correct position regarding the USA, Russia and Iran, but

also to try not to lag behind Azerbaijan in this process in terms of

gaining dividends. This is a problem that seems impossible to settle

in the current domestic political situation in Armenia. Over the last

few years, Armenia has created such a geo-political bloc around itself

that it is possible to overcome it only by using Ukrainian and

Georgian experience [as published].

[sev-mard]

I shudder to imagine this happening, as if aggravating other Islamic nations is what we want to do as *gulp* Americans. This is such a horrible idea and something that should be wholly avoided. If the historical damage is significant enough, I feel like America invading Iran would tear and destroy much of the world fabric for time untold. I'm really sick at the thought of this.

 

Iran's counter-psychological warfare, on the other hand, seeks to take advantage of the "death-fearing" American soldiers who typically lack a strong motivation to fight wars not necessarily in defense of the homeland. A war with Iran would definitely require establishing the draft in the US, without which it could not possibly protect its flanks in Afghanistan and Iraq; imposing the draft would mean enlisting many dissatisfied young soldiers amenable to be influenced by Iran's own psychological warfare focusing on the lack of motivation and "cognitive dissonance" of soldiers ill-doctrinated to President George W Bush's "doctrine of preemption", not to mention a proxy war for the sake of Israel. 

 

This is true as well. Soliders drafted to war from the States in this day and time would not be as "hungry" & focused as others. It would be a terrible slaughter I think. This is just bad and illogical anyway you slice it.

Edited January 28, 2005 by sev-mard

[ED]

George W Bush's "doctrine of preemption", its was know as Wolfovitz, Doglas Faith, more neo-con doctrine in 80,s and 90's, Regan, Bush senior rejected it and many advisors including Brent Scowcroft, and to go even deeper "spreading democracy" as determent as this president is, eventually will result in a draft, no choice and lots of sad consequences not only for US but for the whole world.

 

This country has been hijacked and everyone seems asleep.

 

 

“They have been excoriated for their personal greed, warmongering and allegiance-bordering-on-treason to the state of Israel. Some pro-peace people are waiting for neocons to hang themselves with their own rope, as people blame them for the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, remember necons may yet spark a "preventive" war that will lead to accidental or intentional world nuclear war.

So feel free to write, call, e-mail or fax them at contacts below and tell them to end their nefarious influence on the U.S. government.”

[Anonymouse]

Already there is a large deficit, and the U.S. is living on credit. If those Chinese and Japanese still hold onto U.S. reserves, we'll be lucky. If not, the house of cards will come tumbling down.

[Accelerated]

There will be no war with Iran, because:

 

a) US ground forces are commited elsewhere

b ) A Serbia style 'air-campaign' will not result in a change of government.

Edited January 29, 2005 by Accelerated

[skhara]

There will be no war with Iran, because:

 

a) US ground forces are commited elsewhere

b ) A Serbia style 'air-campaign' will not result in a change of government.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

They want to knock out the 'nuclear threats' by targetting facilities. They could defeat the Iranian military, but the biggest difference is that Iran actally has an airforce and will be able to challenge. The Zionist war machine will be able to defeat the Iranian air-force if they accept inevitable losses.

 

There can't possibly be a Serbia style air campaign because 10 Serbias can fit into one Iran. It it would have to be its own thing: Iran style air-campaign. Iran has what Serbia didn't, advanced military technology. Now even the Serbs were able to bloody NATOs nose a little bit by using assymetrical resistance, and a clever use of deception. Iran can take note, and can use its terrain and better toys at their disposal. Another thing is that Iran has is an ability to hit back. So Zionist war machine knows dam well that they can't just simply attack Iran, so they are probing instead to try to learn what Irans capabilities are.

 

By the way, Russia is selling missles to Syria and Izzy doesn't like it.

[APPLE]

Yes but even so, In the end or more like the first week they will be completly disabled like a mamed kitten, and will only be able to send handicapped children in as suicide bombers like they do in Iraq. After all this guy who suppose to be leading this terrorist group in iraq and Mr. Ossama himself, why dont they become suicide bombers themselves if that is the greatest accomplishment a (jihad muslim) could do. Their whole thinking is so backwards and full of hole to the point where none of it holds water. I am an american living in the US, do I want to see them invade any country? No, and this is how most americans feel. Just a thought. Edited February 1, 2005 by WWW.APPLE.AM

[Anonymouse]

Yes but even so, In the end or more like the first week they will be completly disabled like a mamed kitten,  and will only be able to send handicapped children in as suicide bombers like they do in Iraq. After all this guy who suppose to be leading this terrorist group in iraq  and Mr. Ossama himself, why dont they become suicide bombers themselves if that is the greatest accomplishment a (jihad muslim) could do. Their whole thinking is so backwards and full of hole to the point where none of it holds water. I am an american living in the US, do I want to see them invade any country? No, and this is how most americans feel.  Just a thought.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You do not want to see them invade another country. But you want America to invade other countries I presume.

[APPLE]

No, most Americans dont agree with US foreign policy. I was meaning that although they could easily do it, I dont want to see them invade Iran or any other country,

[skhara]

No, most Americans dont agree with US foreign policy.

 

Most probably can't find America on the map. The continent I mean.

[ED]

Interesting article in LA TIMES today, preperations for another war and ground work for the national draft is on the way, looks like there is going to be a war (s)before bushs second term is over.

*********************************************************************

 

 

Military at Risk, Congress Warned

 

 

WASHINGTON — Strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it far more difficult for the U.S. military to beat back any future act of aggression, launch a preemptive strike or intervene to prevent conflict in another part of the world, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a classified analysis sent to Congress on Monday.

 

In a sober assessment of the Pentagon's reduced ability to deal with global threats, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said that the American military was at greater risk this year than last of being unable to properly execute the missions it needed to prepare for around the globe. The assessment states that the military is at "significant risk" of being unable to prevail against enemies abroad in the manner that Pentagon war plans mandate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Myers' conclusions were couched in highly diplomatic language. But they represented the most candid acknowledgment thus far by a senior Pentagon official that the U.S. involvement in Iraq — which has cost far more in lives and money and taken much longer than predicted — has led to a reassessment of what the U.S. military can and cannot do abroad.

 

And it comes against a background of rising tensions with Iran and North Korea over the advances both countries have made in developing nuclear weapons, as well as continuing evidence that insurgents remain capable of inflicting bloody losses on coalition troops and Iraqi security forces.

 

Pentagon officials stressed that the bottom line of the risk assessment, which the military sends to Congress each year, is that the United States still would be able to win any war the president asked the Pentagon to fight — although it might take longer and require more troops and other resources than the Pentagon's various contingency plans have called for.

 

"The assessment is that we would succeed, but there would be higher casualties and more collateral damage," said one senior defense official. "We would have to win uglier."

 

Military and civilian officials briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because they were discussing details about a classified document.

 

Though it recognizes the strains on manpower, equipment and other capabilities that have been visible during the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, Myers' report to Congress does not conclude that the military is at a greater risk of being unable to carry out its missions to protect U.S. soil.

 

That risk, defense officials said, is assessed as "moderate." America's enemies should not take solace in the analysis or think that the U.S. is somehow more vulnerable than it was last year, they insisted.

 

Yet Myers' report, the Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan, is a concession to the realities of the last three years.

 

Just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon issued a sweeping defense strategy detailing a vision for winning swift wars against global terrorist networks and outlaw regimes. One year later, the White House unveiled a National Security Strategy that discussed using the U.S. military to launch preemptive wars and snuff out threats before they materialized — a strategy that would later be known as the Bush Doctrine.

 

Now, with nearly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq two years after the fall of Baghdad, many Pentagon officials acknowledge that the bloody insurgency has tempered that vision.

 

"The activities we have taken on are at least as great as what we anticipated that we would be able to" handle, said a second senior defense official. Any additional tasks, the official said, would be affected by the current U.S. deployments abroad.

 

Another reason for the new assessment, officials said, is that the Pentagon has rewritten every major war plan over the last few years — using advances in technology to plan faster wars with fewer U.S. troops.

 

These standards are more difficult to meet, and Myers is said to believe the military is at greater risk of being unable to reach specific goals for planning and executing missions.

 

"The performance targets that we've set for operational force, we've raised those," the second senior defense official said.

 

One chart included in the report projected that though the risk is higher this year, it will be "trending lower" over the next two years if the Pentagon reduces the number of troops stationed in Iraq.

 

Experts said the conclusions in Myers' report, although hardly unexpected, were significant because the nation's highest military officer was giving a candid assessment of the strains the U.S. military was experiencing.

 

"It's certainly a blinding flash of the obvious," said Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "But it's always nice when someone says the obvious."

 

Donnelly said that though it was significant that Myers believed the U.S. military would ultimately be able to win any war it was asked to fight, the Pentagon's reduced ability to respond to crises in a timely fashion could jeopardize its ability to protect U.S. interests abroad.

 

One example he cited was the Taiwan Strait, where the proximity of Taiwan to adversary China would allow hostilities to spiral out of control quickly, making a rapid response by the Pentagon crucial.

 

"Time can mean the difference between winning and losing," Donnelly said.

 

Pentagon officials said several initiatives were underway to mitigate the risks outlined in Myers' report, such as increasing the number of special operations troops, placing more reliance on long-range precision weaponry and increasing the Army's size by 10 combat brigades by converting soldiers in staff positions into front-line troops.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines