Cheney already has a plan to invade Khuzestan, Iran

[patrice]

The interesting thing about Khuzestan is that it is located in the southwest corner of Iran, on a flat plane, on the Persian Gulf, and it contains 90% of Iranian oil.

The Bernard Lewis Plan was created by the British in 1950 and given to Saddam Hussein in 1980 during the Reagan administration when Rumsfeld and Cheney were Saddam's handlers. Because Hussein used this plan to invade Khuzestan, its flaws have been identified and amended.

http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/MarchApril06/AKhuzestan.html

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x277535

Do you really think people who did what they did to Iraq would really have any scruples about invading Iran? Especially since it'd be a small defensible corner, easily supplied from the Gulf AND containing 90% of Iranian oil?

[DRoseDARs]

1. Edit: Thank you; self-delete. n/t

[alfredo]

2. Yep, and that will work as well as the invasion and occupation

of Iraq.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

4. Before lastnight, I was thinking "Nawww . . ."

Until I read Devon77 and Emit in the Chomsky thread linked above.

There's a bunch of other stuff in the first link, that document written by a Ph.D. (with his contact at the end) such as what Israel has been doing to help us get ready, training and stuff.

And you know what? It WOULD be a "solution" to BushCo's problems in Iraq.

We've got to write letters to the editors of newspapers to alert the American People that there IS a plan to do this thing and Condi has been preparing the ground for a couple of years now.

[GreenZoneLT]

5. Cheney can go piss up a rope

See elsewhere for London Sunday Times (not that they're 100 percent accurate, considering their "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" story a few years ago), where they quote Pentagon officials as saying the top military leadership would quit rather than obey an order to attack Iran.

There was a lot of diplomatic cover and sound military strategy behind the Iraq invasion:

1. Congressional resolution authorizing it.
2. 12 years of sanctions not having done the trick of opening up Iraq fully to WMD inspection.
3. Five years of hot air-to-ground warfare.
4. UN resolutions authorizing and ending the 1991 Kuwait war, which Iraq had chronically violated.
5. The evidence of ongoing mass murder by the Saddam regime, combined with the death toll tied to the UN sanctions.

Against Iran, they got nothing except that Israel is afraid they're going to get nuked, and some really lame intel about Iran arming Shiite militias in Iraq (geez, who do you think is the No. 1 arms supplier to Shiite militias, considering how much they've infiltrated the Iraqi Army and police? USA! USA! USA! No. 1, Baybee!)

Iraq was a cakewalk to knock over as far as taking out their conventional military force, while Iran is comparatively huge, mountainous and considerably better armed. There's no Iranian equivalent of Kurdistan to welcome us in with open arms. And our military is both less capable now than in 2003, and also kinda busy.

I'm fairly convinced that Iran was next on the list back in 2003, but that neocon pipe dream has long since crashed and burned.

[Bakunin]

6. Its my understanding that

the US has plans to invade/attack/defend most countries around the world and has had plans continually worked on for the better part of a century. That in itself isnt proof. Just what we know of the character or lack thereof, of the Swine in charge.