Calling all Belgians

On Apr 21, 10:25 am, Jack Hollis wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 17:06:55 -0700, Bill C wrote:

Iran is prepared to cut off all traffic in the strait of Hormuz at a
minimum:

It's highly unlikely that they could do that.

The pentagon thinks they can put a huge dent in it using small fast
attack/suicide boats, fake civilian boats, and those nice hypersonic
missiles the Russians have been selling them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...muz-strait.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-gauntlet.htm


http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=4005

http://www.iranmania.com/News/Articl...CurrentAffairs

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=6605

You're the only one I can find who doesn't think this would be a
problem.
Bill C

On 21 Apr 2007 16:41:41 -0700, Bill C wrote:

It's highly unlikely that they could do that.

The pentagon thinks they can put a huge dent in it using small fast
attack/suicide boats, fake civilian boats, and those nice hypersonic
missiles the Russians have been selling them.

I don't doubt that Iran would try to close the SoH. However, I doubt
that they would have very much success. To quote one of the articles
you cited.

"The US intelligence community judges that Iran can briefly close the
Strait of Hormuz,"

This is also the opinion of the CSIS:

"In any case, Iran could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt
tanker traffic, and its submarines and much of its IRGC forces would
probably be destroyed in a matter of days."

http://www.csis.org/component/option...d,3461/type,1/

Actually, this is an excellent article on the military options on both
sides.


In any case, Iran would be unable to close the SoH for very long
because the weapons they need to do that are either ineffective and/or
lack survivability. Mush of it is on a small island. How long do you
thiunk that Iran can hold on to that island? You should also note
that the US has a version of the Patriot Missile that can intercept
low flying cruise missiles. And that would be the most dangerous
weapon in the Iranian arsenal against ships.

However, the Iranian threat to fixed oil targets is much more
problematic. They have fairly accurate long range missiles. Of course,
if Iran started attacking its neighbors for no other reason than it
was attacked by the US, it would destroy any support that Iran has in
the Middle East. The fact that all the fixed oil targets are in Sunni
countries would also not be missed. Iran would be totally isolated.

In the mean time, if Iran were to escalate the war to this level, what
do you think the US would be doing to Iran?

On Apr 21, 8:47 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 16:41:41 -0700, Bill C wrote:

It's highly unlikely that they could do that.

The pentagon thinks they can put a huge dent in it using small fast
attack/suicide boats, fake civilian boats, and those nice hypersonic
missiles the Russians have been selling them.

I don't doubt that Iran would try to close the SoH. However, I doubt
that they would have very much success. To quote one of the articles
you cited.

"The US intelligence community judges that Iran can briefly close the
Strait of Hormuz,"

This is also the opinion of the CSIS:

"In any case, Iran could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt
tanker traffic, and its submarines and much of its IRGC forces would
probably be destroyed in a matter of days."

http://www.csis.org/component/option...,view/id,3461/...

Actually, this is an excellent article on the military options on both
sides.

In any case, Iran would be unable to close the SoH for very long
because the weapons they need to do that are either ineffective and/or
lack survivability. Mush of it is on a small island. How long do you
thiunk that Iran can hold on to that island? You should also note
that the US has a version of the Patriot Missile that can intercept
low flying cruise missiles. And that would be the most dangerous
weapon in the Iranian arsenal against ships.

However, the Iranian threat to fixed oil targets is much more
problematic. They have fairly accurate long range missiles. Of course,
if Iran started attacking its neighbors for no other reason than it
was attacked by the US, it would destroy any support that Iran has in
the Middle East. The fact that all the fixed oil targets are in Sunni
countries would also not be missed. Iran would be totally isolated.

In the mean time, if Iran were to escalate the war to this level, what
do you think the US would be doing to Iran?

Yep, and we prevented the oil fields in Kuwait and Iraq from being
destroyed? The occupation has been a roaring success, We have total
control, right?
These are the same idiots that told Rumsfeld that we'd be down to
5000 troops in 1 1/2 years because the country would be secure. Nicely
accurate.
How the hell you could be concinced that the US, or anyone else for
that matter, can keep an unconventional, and suicidal enemy from
taking out important soft targets is beyond me. There was some slight
success in Afghanistan, but reconstruction is moving at a snails pace
due to sabotage and attacks. Iraq is a disaster. The Israelis are
being rocketed daily. The Brits got smacked off the Falklands and
missile tech has moved massively faster than point defense systems
have been deployed.
Every single thing happening around the globe, and 90% of the experts
say you are in a fantasy land.
We COULD crush Iran. The least damage would be with an all out, no
warning first strike, and there'd still be tons of unconventional
response that might not even do a ton of damage, but would generate
massive press support for them.
How did Tet work out. Militarily we destroyed them, politically and
from a propaganda point they won the war.
I bet you think we've won, "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. You sure
as hell must think so because you are blind to what everyone else sees
and think Iran would be a cakewalk.
Heard this **** before, seen it in action from these people, don't
expect me to believe the pig **** has turned into truffles because you
and a few morons who were wrong in Iraq say so.
Bill C

On Apr 21, 8:47 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 16:41:41 -0700, Bill C wrote:

It's highly unlikely that they could do that.

The pentagon thinks they can put a huge dent in it using small fast
attack/suicide boats, fake civilian boats, and those nice hypersonic
missiles the Russians have been selling them.

I don't doubt that Iran would try to close the SoH. However, I doubt
that they would have very much success. To quote one of the articles
you cited.

"The US intelligence community judges that Iran can briefly close the
Strait of Hormuz,"

This is also the opinion of the CSIS:

"In any case, Iran could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt
tanker traffic, and its submarines and much of its IRGC forces would
probably be destroyed in a matter of days."

http://www.csis.org/component/option...,view/id,3461/...

Actually, this is an excellent article on the military options on both
sides.

Rest of the crap snipped due to **** poor research done for propaganda
purposes:
Thhis is

You also chose to skip this from the CSIS study of the situation.


How destabilizing would it be if Iran pulled its oil off world
markets, were precluded
from selling in world markets, or obstructed the shipment of its
neighbors' oil?


NOT VERY. The world would recover from an Iranianinduced
oil shock in quick order. The International Energy
Agency countries together hold 1.2 billion barrels of strategic
crude stocks, enough to cover Iranian production for two
years. In addition, rising prices would give huge incentives to
existing producers to increase production further, bringing
prices back down quickly.
Although the world would be relatively unaffected by such
Iranian action, Iran would suffer tremendously. An Iranian oil
blockade would almost certainly cut shipments of refi ned gasoline
going to Iran, which account for 25 percent of domestic
consumption. Such a move would also deeply alienate China,
a growing strategic partner whose energy security depends in
part on Iranian reserves and on the unimpeded fl ow of global
oil more generally. In addition, Iran would be hard pressed to
halt oil production without risking permanent damage to its
already stressed oil reservoirs.

VERY. With current levels of production and consumption,
the world could not easily withstand the removal of the
roughly 1 million barrels Iran produces every day. Though
it is impossible to predict future prices with accuracy, experts
agree they would spike at least $20/barrel in the near
term and possibly as much as $60/barrel. In the event of war,
uncertainty would drive prices toward the higher point, as
would Iran coordinating an export halt with a sympathetic
country such as Venezuela.
Iran might also seek to block the Straits of Hormuz, through
which 60 percent of the world's oil passes every day. Iran
has a fl eet of swift mine-laying ships that could cripple traffi
c almost overnight. Also, the use of Iranian missiles against
oil shipments or attacks from sympathetic terrorist groups
operating in the Straits could be severely disruptive for a period
of months. In the longer term, a combination of NATO
de-mining efforts and U.S. Naval escorts could reopen traffi c,
but the near-term disruption could be signifi cant.
Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K:

Arguments both for, and against, but you chose to decalare their
uncertainty to support YOUR position.
Intellectually invalid, and typical it's starting to seem.
Explain to me how the CSIS "VERY" argument supports your position.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:24:24 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

It has always been plain that you're a fart sniffer.

Is anyone tracking the bot obsessions? He seems to have another one
here.

When everyone else was learning to be logical, they told Tom to scat.
Somehow, that episode got confused in Tom's young mind and...

wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:15 am, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:
wrote:
It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence. We didn't have a choice of Good
vs Evil. We had mediocre vs a complete idiot and we chose mediocre. We
can't be too critical of him now.
Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move? And you don't even have the
courage to post under your own name and yet believe that someone
should destroy their entire life for you!
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that the best argument against
democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter ??

Pretty well sums up this entire thread.

No, it was Benjamin Franklin.

In the US, we've reversed the maxim; for the last few
years, the best argument against democracy has been a
5 minute conversation with the average President.

"I think we should just trust our president in every decision
that he makes and we should just support that."
-- Britney Spears and Tom Kunich

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're
going."

Marine Gen. Jack Sheehan (ret.)

wrote:
-- Britney Spears and Tom Kunich

They've got the same hairstyle too.

Jack Hollis wrote:
"The US intelligence community

the modern day oracle of delphi.

Howard Kveck wrote:
Things are not looking very good for Attorney General Going-Going-Gonzalez, are
they?

Not bad for Wolfowitz's girlfriend though (I wonder if she called him big
ears during intimate moments).

Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
-- Britney Spears and Tom Kunich

They've got the same hairstyle too.

Wait a minute ... you know, I never quite bought in to the idea that
Kunich is a program written by Bob Schwartz. Something about him always
seemed a bit more scatological than logical, if you follow me.

Your theory, that "Tom Kunich" is really just Britney Spears' screen
name, makes perfect sense. Same politics, same self-destructive type
actions, obsessive about pointless things (helmet threads, Kevin
Federline, etc.) ... yes, I can see it now!