Then what does it equate to? Non military = civilian.

What is frustrating about this situation is the recent news story that we have black ops already inside of Iran and being funded covertly by Congress. I would imagine airstrikes similarly will happen with or without congressional or public support. And that fits the same pattern of our invasion of Iraq.

They already have a blueprint of about 40 specific airstrikes. It would target the nuclear facilities and all infrastructure for Iran. With a wider attack on Iran, I would expect substantial collateral damage (meaning killed and mutilated civilians on the news). It has been said that the ultimate goal would be both destruction of the nuclear facility and destabilizing the country - thereby setting up Iranians to overthrow the current regime. So invasion is not a part of the deal. Hoping for Iranians to revolt sounds true to form for neo con propaganda.

You dont need to target people at all. Targetting resources is what Iran will do. It will destroy the oil fields and perhaps other US interests.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

The irony is that it will have the opposite impact. Nothing unites a people behind theirleadership quite like being under foerign attack. This would secure the Islamic revolution for many years to come.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

Why would they destroy one of there only sources of income? And when you speak of Iran striking America do you mean our interests over seas? Or attacking us directly?

It would be a bad choice for Iran to attack the US in any form unless there is hard stone cold evidence that we are directly involved. If Israel attacks them and they attack us, well it will be game over for the Iranians.

They won't set ablaze their own oil fields, Israel may do that. What Iran will do is hit the oilfields of any Arab state that colludes with Israel, that will include Iraq, it may mean attacking Saudi oilfields also.

If Israel attacks Iran that is evidence in itself that the US is involved. They will have to fly throw Iraqi airspace - that means US collusion. That is even ignoring that by all accounts Israel is a satellite state, it has a similar relationship to the US as much of the old eastern bloc to the Soviet Union.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

I would like to think that you are correct, as the US has every justification for an assault upon Iran, both because of Tehran's relentless pursuit of nukes and its continual murdering of American military personnel. But I seriously doubt that this will happen. In fact, I would rate the chances of such an occurrence between now and the November election as about zero--or, more precisely, an infinitesimal fraction of one percent. Between Election Day and January 20, the possibility increases marginally--but is still negligible, in my opinion.

Will Israel take on the heavy lifting instead? Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman does not think so. According to The Jerusalem Post, "The US has opted at this point to stick to the diplomatic track in its efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, and has made clear to Israel that it shouldn't attack Iran without White House approval, Cordesman said."

The link is here: Expert: 'US won't allow Israel to attack Iran' | Jerusalem Post

Still, Iran poses a threat to the continued existence of Israel; so I think it is quite likely that Israel will do what it perceives as essential to its survival, irrespective of whether the US blesses the act.

It is that kind of imperialist bafoonery that will be the US downfall. Sticking your nose in everyones business will come back to bite them.

And you dont even seem to comprehend just how hypocritical you and the rulers are being. Ignoring the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. If they did who the hell are the US, Britain or Israel to dictate if they should or should not. The US whilst maintaining its own nuclear might sees no contradiction in telling other countries they cannot aspire to the same.

Israel, the oly nuclear armed state in the region, who hasn't even signed the non proliferation treaty sees no contradiction. Don't you even regard it to be the slightest touch bizarre that the only nuclear armed state in the region is ready to declare war against a signatory to the non proliferation treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It is idiots logic, underpinned with the values of racist and jingoistic supremacy.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

"I would like to think that you are correct, as the US has every justification for an assault upon Iran, both because of Tehran's relentless pursuit of nukes and its continual murdering of American military personnel."

If there are airstrikes the most vulnerable Americans on the planet are our troops in the mideast. To be exact, those are mostly young people from the poorer rural areas, ghettos, barrios, and reservations plus next generation young members of military families. Their voice needs to be heard as they will be the ones to die, loose limbs, have serious life long disabilities, and at risk for PTSD. Bush and Cheney have had no one from their extended families on active duty in the mideast.

Americans or at least their representatives in congress must be in the loop for these decisions. The executive branch usurping power up to the point of unilaterally involving us in wars needs to be abolished and all of the neo cons involved in this purged from government. The war powers resolution needs to be repealed and we need to go back for formal declarations of war voted on in the senated.

We have been involved in internal Iranian politics since the Shah of Iran. Most Americans have negative attitudes about the hostages they took during the Carter Administration, but the fact is our interventionism has been wrong for decades.

Do you really suppose that [s]ticking your nose in everyones business" is an apt description of (a) responding to the ongoing murder of Americans in Iraq, at the hands of Iranian goons; and (b) deciding that a malignant, aggressor state should not be allowed to develop nukes? (If only the US would respond appropriately.)

Yeah, right.

Zealous apocalyptists, who eagerly anticipate the return of the Twelfth Imam, and who wish to bring about the end times in order to facilitate his return, should not be entrusted with nuclear weaponry. If you cannot see the difference between such fanatics being in possession of nukes and stable, unaggressive countries possessing nukes, it is the sort of distinction that I could not make to your satisfaction.