| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Mottaki: US invasion will be pathetic |
| 2010-08-14 |
| The Iranian foreign minister says attacking Iran would throw the US into a quagmire of greater magnitude than the situation it is struggling with in Afghanistan and Iraq. "The Zionist regime (Israel) and the Americans know entering a battle with Iran would not be a limited conflict rather it would be an all-out one," ILNA quoted Manouchehr Mottaki as saying on Friday. Mottaki added that invading Iran would be very destructive for Israel, and it would cost the US much more than the "pathetic overall situation it is grappling with in Afghanistan and Iraq." "That is the reason why Israeli leaders have promised their American counterparts in their recent summits not to attack Iran without consulting one another [first] ...because they are well aware of the consequences [of such an attack]," Mottaki told reporters upon returning to Tehran from his Syria tour. The Iranian minister said the US had used every opportunity over the past 30 years to conspire against Iran and pressure the country, adding that Washington's recent unilateral sanctions against Tehran are "unfair, illegal" and in line with past US actions. He said imposing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program was part of the policy by US's Democratic administration to conceal one and a half years of failure in its domestic policy ahead of the November's midterm elections. Mottaki further criticized the European Union (EU) for behaving like White House. He described Europe as the real loser regarding its recent US-backed sanctions against Iran. "We will make the West regret such illegal acts," he said. In addition to a fourth round of the UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, approved on June 9, the US and the EU have imposed tougher measures on Tehran. The new EU sanctions target the financial, transport, and banking sectors as well as investments in or the sales of equipment to Iranian oil and gas companies. The US sanctions include blacklisting one state bank and a group of companies, as well freezing any Iranian assets that may be under US jurisdiction. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 But take the cannoli. |
| Posted by: Gabby 2010-08-14 20:29 |
| #10 The bigger the mess we make, the greater the responsibility to clean it up. Posted by Nimble Spemble No, leave the "mess" as a visible witness and reminder to others. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-08-14 16:12 |
| #9 There is ample evidence that significant portions of the Iranian people are ready for regime replacement. If we take action, and we certainly won't for the next two years, we should take it against the Iranian leadership, not the Iranian nation. The bigger the mess we make, the greater the responsibility to clean it up. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-08-14 15:54 |
| #8 Steve, wrong. History disagrees with you. Ask the people of Japan about the divinity of the Emperor, and bushido culture. Ask the people of Germany about Nazi-ism. They had to be reduced to ruin to drive their culture to the point of collapse, in order to recover into the societies we now see. Political defiance crumbles when you are starving and your children are dying from cholera or typhus. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-08-14 15:02 |
| #7 They only have one - ONE - gasoline refinery. If I was in charge, I would tell them through channels if they fark with anybody, it will be gone. And the Iranian populace will take care of the rest. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2010-08-14 14:37 |
| #6 A contrary position: Bombing a country rarely turns that country's people against their leadership. It never happened in Britain, Germany, Japan or North Vietnam. Bombing a country makes the inhabitants mad and causes them to rally, almost instinctively, around their leadership. The inhabitants may hate their leadership but they hate being bombed even more. I do NOT want to bomb Iran. It will NOT work in the long run. I want a very quiet, focused plot against the Mad Mullahs™. I want them to have traffic accidents, have them lost in the desert, have them choke on chicken bones, have them slip and fall in the shower. I want their nuclear program to have a whole series of unfortunate accidents. I want their gasoline refineries to go 'kaboom' for unexplained reasons. I want their toadies inside the country to be embarrassed by all sorts of newly-found photographs, and I want their toadies outside their country to be too embarrassed to open their mouths. I want Iranian dissidents supported, nourished and protected. I want ordinary Iranians to get outside news. I want ordinary Iranians to feel emboldened. I want ordinary Iranians to fix the problem. But don't bomb them thinking that bombing will overthrow the Mad Mullahs™. It won't happen. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-08-14 11:32 |
| #5 Who needs to invade? They are thinking wrong. We don't want yout pissant country, we just want your leadership dead and your country knocked prostrate and crippled for decades. In 72 hours we can destroy every major electric power plant, power transmission station, water processing plant, rail & highway bridge, rail yard, port facility and TV & Radio station in Iran. Put up a fence, only allow refugees out. Your cities will disintegrate, without electrictiy, modern medical facilities and water treatment, disease will do the rest. Your society will self destruct in weeks and the revolution will come on its own. We will not need to set a single foot in country - your own people will hang you by your own intestines for leading them into this. Mullahs ask for it Mullahs get it: Welcome to 600 AD bitches. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-08-14 10:36 |
| #4 There is a double reason to invade. The first is that there are two vital regions in Iran that are critical to their rebuilding their nuclear and missile program once it is destroyed. Khuzestan, in the southwest, next to Iraq, which has the bulk of their oil; and Iranian Baluchistan, next to Pakistan, which has the bulk of their minerals. If denied those two, it would be almost impossible to rebuild their nuclear program. The second reason is that Khuzestan is populated with Arabs, not Persians, who are much closer to Iraq than Tehran. They are a hated and unhappy minority that would be glad to become part of Iraq. And Baluchistan is populated with equally despised and powerless Baluchis, who would be happier living with the other half of Balunchistan in Pakistan. In addition, and while we're at it, Iranian Kurdistan could be chopped off as well, and given to Iraqi Kurdistan, which would make the Turkish and Syrian Kurds extra pestiferous, as an added bonus. From that point, Kurds would be America's "bestest buddy". And they get along with Israel, as well. In any event, Iraq controlling Khuzestan means Iran can no longer effectively menace the Persian Gulf, and under the sway of the Pakistani government, Baluchistan will be less able to sponsor al-Qaeda. So the bottom line is a quick, surgical invasion, to remove any Iranian military and IRGC from those two regions, and to decimate both organizations elsewhere while destroying the nuclear and missile sites. Then we turn over the two regions to Iraq and Pakistan, respectively, so we can leave. Yeah, complicated and full of holes, but that's why we have a Pentagon, to figure these things out first. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-08-14 10:35 |
| #3 Invasion? Why in the world would we invade? Just bomb the hell out of important sites. Morons. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2010-08-14 09:53 |
| #2 I'm all for a decapitation strike in parallel with serious strikes on their Republican Guard and all known nuclear facilities. Let them clean up the mess. The people would be happy to get out from underneath the theocracy they've been living under, and they'll know what to do to stay alive until existing revolutionary forces can put together a better oligarchy. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-08-14 02:51 |
| #1 Baghdad Bob style enemy propaganda. I still like the odds of a few thousand armed Herons getting through to targets of interest. Followed by volleys of Tomahawk and Cruise missiles. F22s and F18 hovering overhead to make sure. |
| Posted by: Mike Hunt 2010-08-14 02:14 |