Patrick J. Buchanan What War with Iran Means

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I found this very interesting.. no comment either way , just interesting as to who's beating the war drums....


    Patrick J. Buchanan
    What War with Iran Means
    by Patrick J. Buchanan
    04/02/2010


    "Diplomacy has failed," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told AIPAC, "Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that."

    "We have to contemplate the final option," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

    War is a "terrible thing," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but "sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time."


    Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight:

    "If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government's ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float."


    Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central, writes, "The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends."

    As to who starts it, we know the answer. Teheran has not started a war in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack us -- to strip it of
    weapons it does not have.

    But to Graham's point, if we are going to start this war, prudence dictates that we destroy Iran's ability to fight back. At a minimum, we would have to use airstrikes and cruise missiles to hit a range of targets.

    First, Iran's nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes, the power plant at Bushehr, the centrifuge facility near Qom and the heavy water plant at Arak.

    Our problem here is that the last three are not even operational and all are subject to U.N. inspections. There are Russians at Bushehr. And there is no evidence that diversion to a weapons program has taken place.

    If Iran has secret plants working on nuclear weapons, why have we not been told where, and
    demanded that U.N. inspectors be let in? Why did 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, three years ago, tell us they did not exist and Iran gave up its drive for a nuclear weapon in 2003?

    If Iran is on the "verge" of a bomb, as Schumer claims, the entire U.S. intelligence community should
    be decapitated for incompetence.

    This week, in a hyped headline, "CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes," the Washington Times said that a new CIA report claims, "Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."

    Excuse me, but this is mush. We could say the same of a dozen countries that use nuclear power and study nuclear technology.

    But let us continue with Graham's blitzkrieg war.

    To prevent a counterattack, the United States would have to take out Iran's 14 airfields and all its warplanes on the ground. We would also have to sink every warship and submarine in Iran's navy and destroy some 200 missile, patrol and speedboats operated by the Revolutionary Guard, else they
    would be dropping mines and mauling our warships.

    Also, it would be crucial on day one to hit Iran's launch sites and missile plants for, like Saddam in 1991, Iran would probably attack Israel, to make it an American and Israeli war on an Islamic republic.

    Among other critical targets would be the Silkworm anti-ship missile sites on Iran's coastline that would menace U.S. warships and oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Any Iranian attack on ships or seeding of mines would likely close the gulf and send world oil prices soaring.

    Revolutionary Guard barracks, especially the Quds Force near Iraq, would have to be hit to slow troop movement to and across the border into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers and civilians. The same might be necessary against Iranian troops near Afghanistan.

    With Iran's ally Hezbollah in south Beirut, all U.S. civilians should probably be pulled out of Lebanon before an attack lest they wind up dead or hostages. And how safe would Americans be in the gulf, especially Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a predominantly Shia island?

    And whose side would Shia Iraq take?

    Would we have to intern all Iranian nationals in the United States, as we did Germans and Italians in 1941? How many terror attacks on soft targets in the USA could we expect from Iranian and Hezbollah agents in reprisal for our killing thousands of civilians in hundreds of strikes on Iran?
    Before the War Party stampedes us into yet another war, the Senate should find out if Teheran is really on the "verge" of getting a bomb, and why deterrence, which never failed us, cannot succeed with Iran.


    04/02/2010


    "Diplomacy has failed," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told AIPAC, "Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that."

    "We have to contemplate the final option," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

    War is a "terrible thing," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but "sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time."


    Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight:

    "If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government's ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float."


    Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central, writes, "The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends."

    As to who starts it, we know the answer. Teheran has not started a war in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack us -- to strip it of
    weapons it does not have.

    But to Graham's point, if we are going to start this war, prudence dictates that we destroy Iran's ability to fight back. At a minimum, we would have to use airstrikes and cruise missiles to hit a range of targets.

    First, Iran's nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes, the power plant at Bushehr, the centrifuge facility near Qom and the heavy water plant at Arak.

    Our problem here is that the last three are not even operational and all are subject to U.N. inspections. There are Russians at Bushehr. And there is no evidence that diversion to a weapons program has taken place.

    If Iran has secret plants working on nuclear weapons, why have we not been told where, and
    demanded that U.N. inspectors be let in? Why did 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, three years ago, tell us they did not exist and Iran gave up its drive for a nuclear weapon in 2003?

    If Iran is on the "verge" of a bomb, as Schumer claims, the entire U.S. intelligence community should
    be decapitated for incompetence.

    This week, in a hyped headline, "CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes," the Washington Times said that a new CIA report claims, "Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."

    Excuse me, but this is mush. We could say the same of a dozen countries that use nuclear power and study nuclear technology.

    But let us continue with Graham's blitzkrieg war.

    To prevent a counterattack, the United States would have to take out Iran's 14 airfields and all its warplanes on the ground. We would also have to sink every warship and submarine in Iran's navy and destroy some 200 missile, patrol and speedboats operated by the Revolutionary Guard, else they
    would be dropping mines and mauling our warships.

    Also, it would be crucial on day one to hit Iran's launch sites and missile plants for, like Saddam in 1991, Iran would probably attack Israel, to make it an American and Israeli war on an Islamic republic.

    Among other critical targets would be the Silkworm anti-ship missile sites on Iran's coastline that would menace U.S. warships and oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Any Iranian attack on ships or seeding of mines would likely close the gulf and send world oil prices soaring.

    Revolutionary Guard barracks, especially the Quds Force near Iraq, would have to be hit to slow troop movement to and across the border into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers and civilians. The same might be necessary against Iranian troops near Afghanistan.

    With Iran's ally Hezbollah in south Beirut, all U.S. civilians should probably be pulled out of Lebanon before an attack lest they wind up dead or hostages. And how safe would Americans be in the gulf, especially Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a predominantly Shia island?

    And whose side would Shia Iraq take?

    Would we have to intern all Iranian nationals in the United States, as we did Germans and Italians in 1941? How many terror attacks on soft targets in the USA could we expect from Iranian and Hezbollah agents in reprisal for our killing thousands of civilians in hundreds of strikes on Iran?
    Before the War Party stampedes us into yet another war, the Senate should find out if Teheran is really on the "verge" of getting a bomb, and why deterrence, which never failed us, cannot succeed with Iran.
     
  2. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    Who cares if Iran wants nuclear weapons? It would change absolutely nothing. It is just a bargaining chip. Not something that would ever be used.

    We shouldn't have troops in the region in the first place. If they destroy Israel, then so be it. At some point the fighting will have to end. And somebody is going to have to be on the losing side. It's none of our business.
     

  3. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    While I'll agree with this to a point, there are two sides to this coin.

    I am appalled at the amount of money this country gives to Israel every year. And it's borrowed money!! This is insane!

    However, imagine what would happen to the price of oil and every product that has a petro component. Gas, plastics and fertilizer to name a few, all have a base in oil. An all out war in this region would send the price of oil through the roof and make all of our lives much more difficult. Not impossible for some, but I believe it would surely collapse what is left of our economy.
     
  4. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I think it's that mentality that would drive them to use a nuke, even if it was only a smaller tactical one. The opposition doesn't expect you to use it, you're a crazy dictator with delusions of grandeur, the war is supported by 2000 years of conflict.

    This is the downside to allies, you have to be their ally too! :p


    In my opinion if we go to war with Iran it will be BAD, worse than Iraq. But there is plenty of support in the country for freedom, and after the protests last year and this year where people are being shot, clubbed, and tortured, I don't think it will take nuclear use to spark this powder keg.
     
  5. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16

    This is funny, I agree with you Allen but I disagree with you also....

    Will Iran use the bomb, yes they will , when they can , and they don't give a crap about the aftermath .

    The Ayatollahs are crazy, or so deeply brainwashed by their religious fervor that they only think of Paradise for themselves, yes they will use it if they can take Israel out at the same time... I believe this with all my being ...

    And no we should not have troops there at all, we need to pull all out people home, close a good part of the 240 odd bases scattered around the world, I'm not saying to become an Isolationist nation but just keep our people home, secure our borders and take care of our own business.

    Somebody else mentioned how much money we give Israel, true we do, but the second most money goes to Egypt who also spends it mostly on military hardware, meaning we the tax payers pay to arm our military, then pay the Israelis and Egyptians and several countries to arm their militarizes with the same hardware from the same military complex so we are paying our tax dollars to most of the world to enrich a few corporations who are raking it in from all sides...

    That needs to stop! now and forever!... we need National health care??? then use the money we are giving away... and get the UN out of our country and us out of the UN it's a F*&^in joke and always has been and we pay over 25 % of the total cost... and get voted against 90 % of the time.. who needs them?


    Bring em home, we have enough weapons just in our Sub fleets to destroy most of the world ten time over...

    Regardless, sooner or later some ******* sob screaming something about Allah will push a button so he can get his 17 virgin sheep or whatever...

    So as I always say, stack em deep and high coz your gonna need it..
    .
     
  6. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    like:congrat:
     
  7. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    Anyone who thinks those crazy bastard's will not push the little red button, better think again. Rational thought does not compute with these idiot's. One nuke = world wide response, ya better believe it. You are correct HozayBuck sooner or later it will happen. Some screaming foaming at the mouth zealot will do it, that's a fact. :scratch
     
  8. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
     
  9. testhop

    testhop Well-Known Member

    72
    0
    obama cant bring the troops home

    obama cant bring the troops home .
    why ? imho he would put 300000 more people in the unemployment line.