Some fear escalation with Iran in Strait of Hormuz – CNN
Iran’s vice president is warning that the Islamic Republic could block the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its exports of crude oil. In fact, Iran is conducting a 10-day military exercise in the area. CNN analysts said the situation appeared volatile, and readers responded to stories about this incident by debating what would happen if the U.S. tried to go to war with Iran.
Many of our readers said they feared the U.S. would at some point be tempted to go to war with Iran, and expressed concern about harm that could be done in such a case.
greatpet: “The Soviets had over 10,000 nuclear weapons and was dealt with diplomatically, but Iran should be attacked militarily if she acquired only a few nuclear weapons and hardly any delivery systems? This doesn’t make sense.”
era923: “You know where the problem is? The U.S. didn’t have the (courage) to attack the USSR. In Iran’s case, they still don’t have it, but maybe Israel will drag them to the war and make the U.S fight for them. This time, the U.S is going to pay a huge price.”
RKW29: “Ha! Are you serious? 10,000 nuclear weapons and you ask why we never attacked? Um, are you on crack? This is also why the Soviets never attacked us.”
Indeed, several readers said Iran was behaving in a hostile manner, even playing with brinkmanship.
medschoolkid: “This particular instance really has nothing to do with energy policies in the US or whether or why we shouldn’t invade Iran. The Iranians cannot disrupt commerce in the seas. The concept of freedom of the seas is far older than the US or our foreign policies.”
Daniel419: “But we can disrupt them with sanctions for something they have every right to persue? OK, that makes sense. (Sarcasm font needed.)”
Many said such actions are foolish.
gorebs88: “Congrats Iran, you are wasting all of your weapons to put on a show for countries that already know they can destroy you. Awesome.”
Others chastised the U.S. for starting wars against countries they believe to be weaker. For example, we received such a comment from a Vietnam veteran:
naiveless: “We only attack countries that we have far superior military power over. Like countries that have no air force or sophisticated weapons and fight in flip flops with wool for body armor and with outdated weapons, we kill them with drones, missiles, and gunship support and then puff our chest out as how heroic and brave we are. –Vietnam Vet”
There were a lot of commenters who worried that a war with Iran could happen, at cost to many.
lochlan: “The war hawks are salivating. ‘Push them again, maybe they’ll fight back.’ We can go in, kill a bunch of people, mostly innocent civilians and our soldiers, who won’t even get a thank you, just a screw job when they get back, and then give everything we can possibly steal from the country to the corporate elite, who won’t spill a single drop of their own blood. And nobody is going to stop them.”
def1ant: “Actually, the stealing will come from us, the American taxpayer, because after all, war is a very profitable business.”
But many other readers said they didn’t believe Iran was acting in its own best interest, as in this discussion.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorizedrmtaks: “Closing the strait off would be badly overplaying their hand. It’s basically a free ticket for a NATO attack. If Iran thinks the West isn’t itching to topple their regime they are seriously miscalculating; it has just been politically unfeasible since Iran really hasn’t done anything until now.”
GeneralDavis: “The sanctions against Iran are an act of war, so they are entitled to strike back. And if Iran already has nukes, then we are the ones miscalculating.”
rmtaks: “GeneralDavis: That isn’t going to be how the public sees it, and that’s what matters. If they have nukes (on Israel presumably), and use them, that would allow the West to declare total war.”
WarSclerotic 
December 29, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Reblogged this on Basil Wheel.